2004-12-10

Business of the HouseHon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that you would find unanimous consent for the following order. I move:

That, during 2004, the words “second Friday preceding Christmas Day” in Standing Order 28 be read as “second Tuesday preceding Christmas Day”, provided that, if at any time when the House stands adjourned, a committee has a report ready, the said report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House.

The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
(Bill S-10. On the Order: Government Orders:)

December 3, 2004--The Minister of Justice--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Bill S-10, a second act to harmonize federal law of the Province of Quebec and to amend certain acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

Federal Law--Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 2Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill S-10, a second act to harmonize federal law of the province of Quebec and to amend certain acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill deemed read a second time, considered in committee, reported without amendment, concurred in, read a third time and passed)
Bill C-20. On the Order: Government Orders:

December 9, 2004—The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians--Concurrence at report stage and second reading of Bill C-20, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management ActHon. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between the parties, and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:
I move:

That Bill C-20, an act to provide for the real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage, read a second time and ordered for consideration at the third reading stage later this day.

The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill deemed concurred in and read a second time)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Jean Lapierre (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.
Before I speak to the contents of the proposed legislation though, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I note that our chair, the member for Nunavut is here today, and colleagues in the House who, with their consent, facilitated this final debate today. I acknowledge and am grateful for that.
This important legislation will enable first nations to access the tools they need to increase their participation in the economy. Under the provisions of Bill C-20, first nations will have at their disposal the same financial instruments and mechanisms used by municipal governments to plan effectively, raise capital and secure investments. With this capacity, first nations will be better able to realize their dreams of self-sufficiency and prosperity.
The impetus for this legislation originates with first nation leaders from across the country. It is important to recognize that Bill C-20 was developed by first nations for first nations.
The legislation before us today is the product of many years of hard work, detailed analysis and continual refinement. Leaders of first nations have told us that Bill C-20 represents their communities' best hope for a more equitable share in Canada's prosperity. I believe it is incumbent upon us to champion this hope and facilitate a new reality for first nations in our country together.
The latest figures from Statistics Canada confirm that first nations communities continue to rank among the poorest in Canada; their residents experience the lowest standards of living. This is not acceptable. This we need to address.
Manny Jules, the principal architect of Bill C-20, summed up the current situation eloquently, when he said:

Today a wall surrounds First Nation economies; a wall built by past legislation and policies; a wall of mistrust and dependency that traps us in poverty. Each additional year of dependency adds another brick in this wall. The wall has not served Canada well because it prevents us from participating in the economy.

Manny Jules, together with Chief Strater Crowfoot, Chief Tom Bresette, Harold Calla and Deanna Hamilton are foremost among the committed leaders of this legislative initiative. Others have done amazing work to assist the development and realization of their dreams, and I acknowledge not only their presence and support today, but their steadfast efforts over time.
I am convinced that Bill C-20 will help dismantle the wall. With this vitally important legislation, first nations communities will be able to fulfill their vision of self-sufficiency and prosperity. Bill C-20 would enable first nations leaders to meet the specific needs of their specific community.
The essence of the legislation is a series of four distinct yet complementary institutions: a finance authority, a tax commission, a financial management board and a statistical institute. Precursors to two of these institutions, for instance the Indian taxation advisory board, have operated for several years and the results have been remarkable. The time has come to move forward to do better.
Once these institutions are in place, first nations will have many of the powers long enjoyed by municipal governments, including the ability to borrow money at competitive rates, to develop effective real property tax systems and to protect the interests of their ratepayers.
First nations that participate in these institutions will also be able to increase financial management capacity and improve long term planning. In short, first nations will exercise greater control over and assume greater responsibility for the economic and social health of their communities.
The viability of every community in Canada is affected by the strength and reliability of its physical infrastructure. For example, transportation links, water and sewage treatment facilities and other components of modern infrastructure are also essential to economic growth, Municipalities across Canada have long funded infrastructure projects through low interest loans. Lenders were keen to invest in these projects because of the legal status, financial health and political stability of municipal governments.
Most first nation communities, though, struggle to attract investors and finance the construction of infrastructure. Funding even the most modest of projects quickly becomes prohibitively expensive due to high transaction costs and interest rates. Furthermore, verification and approval processes often delay the start of projects, leading to additional costs.
According to a study completed by first nations fiscal institutions initiative, funding an infrastructure project in a first nations community can be up to 10 times more expensive than a similar project built elsewhere. As a result, today many first nations communities suffer from the effects of inadequate physical infrastructure. Bill C-20 would establish these four independent institutions that would provide valuable services to first nations at every stage of growth.
I would like to describe these institutions briefly now and explain their roles.
More than a decade ago, a handful of communities pooled their resources to create the First Nations Finance Authority Inc. for investment purposes. As the number of first nations participating in the authority grew, so did the feasibility of issuing debentures to access long term capital at competitive interest rates. The concept attracted the support of a key partner, the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, which had 30 years' experience and a triple A credit rating.
The new First Nations Finance Authority will provide participating first nations with access to capital markets by issuing debentures using property tax revenues as security, debentures that will finance infrastructure projects.
To assist band councils in instituting effective property tax regimes, Bill C-20 would create the First Nations Tax Commission, or FNTC. The FNTC will establish the legal framework needed to effectively balance community and ratepayer interests. It will institute processes to resolve disputes and to approve bylaws and it will provide the services needed to securitize real property tax revenues. In short, the FNTC will foster the secure and stable fiscal environments sought by investors.
To ensure that this environment thrives over the long term, first nations must have access to adequate financial management services. Lenders must have a clear and accurate picture of the fiscal health of borrowers. Independent assessments must be readily available. The First Nations Financial Management Board, or FMB, is designed to meet these requirements.
There are two components of the FMB's mandate. The first component focuses on the provision of technical services to first nations regardless of financial status. The FMB will assist with research and advocacy, policy and capacity development, along with financial management, reporting and standards. These activities will help first nations communities to make the most of their financial resources.
The second part of the board's mandate focuses on first nations that collect property tax and seek to borrow against this revenue. The FMB will certify and monitor financial management standards of these first nations, providing potential investors with a clear and accurate picture of fiscal health. By conducting independent assessments of financial status, the board will ensure that lenders have the information and the confidence needed to invest. The FMB will be empowered to intervene promptly and decisively if needed.
To ensure that the institutions I have described can function appropriately, their performance must be recorded accurately and also analyzed regularly. To accomplish these goals, an effective method of gathering statistics is needed. Unfortunately. the quality and accuracy of statistical systems in first nations communities has been inadequate and, I must say, inconsistent. Precise, relevant data is particularly essential for community planners. Information on population growth and effectiveness of service delivery mechanisms, for instance, is needed to design effective housing and health initiatives.
Planners in first nations communities, though, rarely have had access to the valuable information collected from fellow residents. Although several government departments and agencies have long collected data about and from members of first nations, this information is seldom shared with other agencies or even with the communities that have provided the information in the first place.
A few years ago, the Auditor General estimated that each first nation annually provides the government with information about more than 150 aspects of community life. Data concerning school enrolment, employment, population and dozen of other subjects are recorded and analyzed, but the information is usually gathered for specific purposes and rarely shared with first nations.
Not surprisingly, this severely hampers the ability of band councils and aboriginal leaders to plan effectively. Further compounding the problem is the fact that few agencies involve residents of first nations communities directly in the compilation, collation and analysis of information. As a result, few aboriginal people have acquired any familiarity or expertise with statistical techniques. Although this is a generalization, I think it is relatively true.
Bill C-20 would improve the situation significantly by establishing the First Nations Statistical Institute, or FNSI. FNSI will have the power to collect information from a variety of sources and develop a comprehensive database of accurate and pertinent statistics about each first nation community in Canada. As a first nations led organization, FNSI will bring an aboriginal perspective to every aspect of information collection, interpretation and use.
Of greater significance, though, is the positive effect that the expertise in data management will have on local governance. Chiefs and councils will have the data needed to make informed decisions about economic and social development in their communities.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed to begin the essential task of renewing its relations with first nations. The government vowed to follow a collaborative approach and pledged to establish a relationship based on equality, trust and mutual respect. Much progress has been made on this front and we will continue to go forward.
The Canada-aboriginal peoples round table united representatives of dozens of governments, agencies and organizations from across Canada for a series of focused and productive discussions. These talks led to a series of processes to accelerate progress and measure performance.
Sectoral follow-up meetings focusing on health, lifelong learning and housing have already been held. Next week, sessions on fostering economic opportunity will get under way.
The legislation before us today is another part of this collaborative effort. Designed by first nations, Bill C-20 would play an important role in the new relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples. The legislation sends a clear message to all first nations that the Government of Canada is aware of the problems they face, has listened carefully to the solutions they have proposed, and is now prepared to act.
The practical fiscal management tools at the heart of this legislation will help first nations better manage their land and more easily acquire the funds they need to engage in community building projects. Improvements in physical infrastructure would contribute to a better quality of life in two ways. Upgrading transportation and communication links creates jobs, establishes new opportunities for entrepreneurs and increases land values. Investments in infrastructure fuel a healthy cycle of economic development that will continue well into the future.
Bill C-20 provides these tools that would support the building of new relationships and give first nations access to financial instruments and mechanisms to raise capital and secure investment. With these tools, first nations would be able to create a business-friendly economic growth and realize their dreams, not ours, of self-sufficiency and prosperity.
This legislation is not a panacea for the economic woes of first nations. It will not magically transform poverty stricken communities into prosperous, thriving towns. Bill C-20, however, would give first nations the freedom to develop their communities on their own terms. Community leaders would gain access to the same legal tools and financial mechanisms that enabled other Canadian communities to flourish and grow. All first nations can benefit from the expertise of institutions such as the FMB, whether or not they decide to participate in the borrowing pool.
Bill C-20 would not diminish the constitutionally protected rights of aboriginal peoples. Instead, the legislation would help those first nations that choose to participate to exercise those rights by creating equal opportunities for first nations within the Canadian constitutional framework.
The government is well aware that there is no such thing as a one size fits all solution to the divergent needs and aspirations of first nations. First nations governments can use this legislation if and when they are ready. No band will ever be forced to take part. The choice of whether to participate or not will be up to the individual communities.
Bill C-20 is flexible and inclusive enough to meet the needs of hundreds of first nations. I am convinced that the tools accessible through Bill C-20 would help to close the considerable gaps that exist between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in this country.
Furthermore, by combining rigorous standards with legal powers and institutional support, the legislation would ensure that first nations operate within their debt carrying capacity as they move toward self-sufficiency.
Finally, Bill C-20 would create a legal framework enabling first nations to work directly and effectively with private companies and public agencies. This would put an end to first nation isolation and lead to a better quality of life for first nations communities.
In short, Bill C-20 outlines a balanced approach to long term financial health for first nations. Clearly, all Canadians stand to benefit.
Bill C-20 is not a prescriptive bill. First nations are neither required to participate in the institutions I have described, nor must they adhere to a specific regime. This legislation recognizes and accommodates the divergent needs and aspirations of first nations. I believe that the flexible, inclusive approach articulated by Bill C-20 is its greatest strength. Bill C-20 would provide access to a range of options, enabling each community to chart its own path to prosperity.
I thank my hon. colleagues of all parties who have by their actions shown support for this legislation. I say merci and I wish good luck to everyone.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to ask this question, because it has been a very important subject at the meetings of our Standing Committee on the Status of Women these past few weeks. We have been having different groups come in and give presentations. The biggest concern we have heard is that we are passing legislation in the House without any type of gender analysis, without any type of analysis that tells us how legislation is going to affect women.
Some women coming to our status of women committee meetings are from the aboriginal groups. They have a lot of concerns. I would like to know how this bill is going to address the concerns that the aboriginal women have been bringing to our committee, particularly their concerns about property rights. Yesterday we heard a lot of concerns about not having enough shelters for a lot of the women who are trying to get away from violence, from domestic violence and from violent relationships. We also have heard a lot of concerns about not having representation of women on councils.
I am wondering if any of this has been taken into consideration. It looks like we are going to be spending quite a few of the next months listening to more of these presentations. I am wondering if this bill has been analyzed for gender.
Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member opposite, I am absolutely ecstatic that the opposition party is now in favour of gender analysis. It was a policy put forward through the Beijing meetings nearly a decade ago. I can tell the member that in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs we have already started to do some gender work inside the department on specific projects. I can also tell the member that this side of the House is looking forward to doing more gender analysis throughout all the departments, but we know that this has not been completely done at this stage.
I am very happy to hear the Conservative Party talking to this aspect of government-wide work. I know the member is not referring specifically to the work we are doing in our committee; it is actually another committee of the House that she is referring to.
I can tell the hon. member I agree with her when she says there are problems, specifically with matrimonial property on reserves. This is an issue that has taken the interest of the minister. In fact, he has recently written to the chair of our committee asking the committee to study matrimonial property with a view to looking at legislation the House could put forward to address this huge challenge, which has stymied many first nations leaders and individuals.
I know that the reality of the problem is there. Our committee has not yet had a chance to discuss how we will go about this mandate, so I will not preclude what the committee will do on that matter because that would be inappropriate at this time. I very sincerely believe, as a personal belief, that this is a challenge which we have to all rise to together. We will not do that without a collaborative effort with first nations communities, which also recognize that this is a huge challenge.
As for the bill itself, if the member would read specific clauses in the bill she will see that they specifically talk about getting qualified men and women, for instance on the directorship, including first nations communities, involved in this legislation. At the committee, I actually pointed out the specific clause in the bill that refers to this.
The benefits will be in the well-being of the whole community. I am very much looking forward to people utilizing this aspect. I look forward to working with the member and her party in future on all these issues.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on this bill much has been made of the optional nature of the bill. Even in earlier incarnations this was less clear, but in this incarnation of the bill, as it went from Bill C-19 to Bill C-23, to now Bill C-20 in this Parliament, the claim is made by the government that this is truly optional and people's fears are groundless.
However, it remains unclear to me and perhaps the parliamentary secretary can help me with this. In relation to the statistical institute, which is one of the four new fiscal institutions created by Bill C-20, I do not understand how the claim can be made that Bill C-20 is optional. In fact, the statistical institute is not optional at all. All first nations in Canada come under this whether they wish to or not.
Unless I am missing something completely, there is no optional nature to the statistical institute. Perhaps this should have been dealt with as a separate bill. Perhaps the government should have introduced the three other fiscal institutions as one bill. If there was a need for the statistical institute, it could have been dealt with separately. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me how the statistical institute could be seen as optional.
Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I referred to the optional part of this bill as in the fiscal tools. The minister stated in committee in his opening remarks that the statistical institute is not optional. It applies to all first nations. If the member had wanted to do something different about severing the statistical institute, I am sure he could have made amendments to that effect, but he did not. In fact, he chose, and I am very glad that he did, to be part of the unanimous passing with other amendments but nothing relating to that situation.
It was clarified in committee. The bill is a reincarnation of two previous attempts to have the bill changed into optional legislation. First nations will choose if and when they wish to participate in the taxing and borrowing regimes established by the bill. The provisions of the bill dealing with these regimes will apply only to those first nations which appear in the schedule to the bill. A band council must ask to be added to the schedule.
The schedule is established by the governor in council. The name of the first nation can appear in the schedule only at the request of the council of that first nation. First nations have had the option, under the Indian Act, to establish real property tax regimes since 1988 and that option will also continue to be available.
First nations would continue to be free to raise capital as they do now. There is no obligation for any first nation to borrow through the finance authority. No one has forced any first nation to tax under the provisions of the Indian Act. No one will force any first nation to tax or borrow under the provisions of this bill. First nations will make that decision. The minister made that point very clearly in committee.
This initiative is first nation led. The bill has resulted from over 15 years of dedicated effort by a group of first nation leaders who seek to remove existing barriers to economic development. The development of the bill has been guided by their vision, their determination, their skills and personal commitment, along with input of industry specialists.
Overall, yes this is optional for the taxation. The whole point of the statistical institute is to be able to do the planning. If that was unclear to the member, I am very glad he gave me this opportunity to clarify that.
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-20, a bill described as the first nations statistical and management act. The bill has made quite an expeditious journey through the House of Commons to committee and back onto the floor of the House of Commons today, anticipating early approval with the cooperation of all of the parties in the House.
I will not replicate the comments made by my learned friend. There are substantial parts of this legislation upon which she and I agree for once. My comments will respond to a couple of the questions that have been raised and to outline in philosophical terms why our party supports this legislation. The Conservative Party is fully in support of Bill C-20 and the principles contained therein.
This past month the National Post published an opinion piece which was prepared by Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. As I said before, while I do not agree with everything that my colleague, Grand Chief Fontaine, has said in that article, there are many matters upon which he and I agree and which I think all Canadians should consider.
This country is a modern federal democracy in which all of the citizens of Canada must bear equally the responsibilities and also the privileges of citizenship. The time has come that aboriginal Canadians are entitled, indeed they are expected, to share in the governance of Canada, to share in the governance of their own affairs, and their inherent right of self-government. If aboriginal Canadians are to be equal citizens in this country, if they are also to bear upon their shoulders the hopes and dreams of Canada, then they must also bear equally the responsibilities of governing this country. Concurrently, they must enjoy the full benefits of citizenship, including the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As Chief Fontaine observed in the
National Post:

To be self-sufficient, to rely on ourselves, we must be free and able to make our own choices. Reliance on the choices that others make for us is a denial of the means to self-sufficiency.

In that regard, an important study was carried out in Canada and referred to by Mr. Fontaine, the Harvard Project. It referred to three factors which are critical to economic self-sufficiency. These are worth emphasizing in the context of this debate.
First, practical sovereignty means genuine decision-making power over internal affairs, governance, resources, institutions and development strategies.
Second, capable governing institutions are those which exercise power effectively, responsibly and reliably.
Third, the necessity for a cultural match, which means formal institutions of government that match indigenous concepts of how authority should be organized and should be exercised.
In this country, over the past many years, we have had a debate about the scope and content of aboriginal self-government. Much has been said about that subject and that debate will carry on. The debate, by and large, has been a democratic and a civil one, even though it has been marked by a lack of consensus on many fundamental matters.
Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians need to be reminded that, while we do not always agree upon the scope and content of governance rights, virtually all Canadians share a desire to see aboriginal Canadians as equal partners in this marvellous country. They wish to see a full embodiment of the inherent right of self-government in a way which is practical and which achieves success for aboriginal Canadians.
The Indian Act is both anachronistic and archaic. Frankly, it has no place in the Canada of tomorrow. It has not yet been replaced in our country by a modern legislative framework only because we have been unable as a country to this point to define how and by what legislative means the Indian Act should be replaced. However, I would hasten to add that I anticipate that in the next several years we will make great strides in that regard. We will succeed in replacing the Indian Act with legislation which has the support of first nations and which moves us into the future.
The issues to be sure are complex. They involve questions that strike to the heart of this country: issues pertaining to the application of the charter; the distribution of governmental jurisdiction within our country, within our federal system; the incidence of citizenship; the correlative rights and expectations which we demand of one another as fellow citizens; and also those difficult issues that deal with the distribution of resources.
These would be difficult enough questions on their own. They are all the more difficult when one factors in the rich and diverse mosaic, the linguistic mosaic, and the cultural mosaic of Canada's aboriginal peoples: Inuit, Métis and over 600 distinct Indian first nations.
As Grand Chief Fontaine has observed, people need control over their own lives and the chance to reap the benefits of their own labours. They do not flourish when they are denied the right to decide for themselves how they will live.
I for one have reached the conclusion, after many years of involvement on this subject, that many of the difficulties which aboriginal people have faced in this country tie back to their struggle against the collectivist tyranny of the Indian Act. It is important that we replace that legislation and Bill C-20 is extraordinarily important legislation in that regard. It represents one of the first steps to pass control of the lives of aboriginal Canadians in respect of economic and taxation matters back within their own jurisdiction in a voluntary manner.
In respect of self-government, the position of myself and my party is clear. The Indian Act and related legislation should be replaced by a modern legislative framework which provides for the inherent right of self-government for the devolution of full, legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal peoples over their own affairs. This must be done within the overall framework of our federal state.
This reform should be pursued following full consultation with first nations, with the objective of achieving a full and complete devolution of democratic authority that is consistent with the devolution of authority elsewhere within our federal democratic system. Aboriginal Canadians, like all Canadians, are entitled to enjoy democratic control over their own affairs within a legislative context that ensures certainty, stability, respect for the rule of law, and which balances individual and collective responsibility.
Aboriginal communities must have the flexibility to determine for themselves whether and how principles, such as free market principles and individual property ownership should apply to reserve lands. We feel very strongly that this devolution should be accomplished in a manner which takes into account the cultural, linguistic and rich diversity of Canada's first nations. Within that context and within the framework of the Canadian Constitution, we should be prepared to make flexible accommodations for the protection of language and culture within self-government agreements.
I return at this point to the legislation before the House, Bill C-20. One of the fundamental aspects of this legislation, which warrants emphasis, is that it originates not so much with the Government of Canada, and I mean no disrespect in that regard, but rather with a group of visionary leaders, aboriginal Canadians who have fought for their vision of self-government and who have persisted in the face of considerable difficulty.
I speak of a team of people, but there are four or five people in particular I wish to mention for the record in this honourable House. They are Chief Tom Bressette, the chairman of the first nations statistical advisory panel and the present Chief of the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation; Harold Calla, chairman of the financial management advisory panel, a councillor and individual from the Squamish First Nation; Chief Strater Crowfoot, chairman of the Indian taxation advisory board and chief of the Siksika First Nation; Deanna Hamilton, the president and CEO of the first nation finance authority of the Westbank First Nation; and Manny Jules, the former Indian taxation advisory board chairman and the former chief of the Kamloops Indian Band.
These men and women, and the extraordinary team of people who have worked with them are fighting to ensure that the first nation communities that wish to will have voluntary access to practical levers of self-government, which will bring them economic progress, prosperity and social development.
Their vision is one of prosperity, of infrastructure development, of economic development, of economic opportunity and social progress. The self-government, which they are fighting for, is predicated upon the hard work associated with citizenship in this country, the installation of community infrastructure, the responsibilities of debt service, the administration of a property tax system, and the building of fiscal, managerial and financial capacity in their communities.
The legislation also concurrently balances the interests of the federal crown and contains provisions that would provide the necessary protection for the position of taxpayers commensurate with that of other taxpayers in our federal system.
I wish to point out, in response to some of the questions that have been raised surrounding this legislation, that there has been an enormous amount of consultation surrounding the development of this statute.
The bill not only originated with the first nation communities, of which I have spoken, but this project evolved to include many other first nations and regional first nation bodies, the First Nation Summit of British Columbia and the Union of Ontario Indians. Discussion was held in those forums.
Years of consultation and debate have surrounded the development of this initiative. Debates with the Assembly of First Nations AGM, the B.C. First Nation Summit, the Union of Ontario Indians, the Atlantic Policy Congress, as well as numerous discussions with individual first nations. In addition to those consultations, meetings have been held with non-first nation taxpayers, provincial governments, private sector companies and municipal governments.
I would point out for the record and for special note, that consultations have been held with the Canadian Property Tax Association, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Bank of Montreal, First Nations Bank, TD Canada Trust, VanCity Credit Union, Standard &amp; Poor's Corporation, Moody's Investors Services, the Aboriginal Finance Officers Association, the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia and other bodies as well.
What all of that speaks to is the remarkable amount of consultation on the legislative progress of the bill. In that regard, when I went through the provisions of the bill in a detailed way, chapter and verse, paragraph by paragraph, I was struck by the fact that the provisions of the bill were well thought out, well crafted and meticulously drafted.
There are three particular issues which the House needs to be aware of and which I think are adequately addressed in the legislation. First, the rights of taxpayers under this legislation; second, the liability of the crown; and third, the provisions relating to default or defalcation.
It is important to note that with respect to the rights of taxpayers, a great deal has been done in the legislation to ensure that a taxpayer on reserve, whether it be an industrial taxpayer or a taxpayer in a residential or commercial context, is being treated very much the same as a taxpayer anywhere else in Canada. An assessment bylaw must be approved by the tax commission under clause 5(2). Assessment appeals are mandatory and prescribed by regulation. There is an appeal review process. A review can be requested of the first nation tax commission under clause 33. In addition, the commissioners of the tax commission include specifically taxpayer appointed nominees under clause 20.
A great deal of effort went into ensuring that the rights of taxpayers were examined, considered and protected. I think they are quite commensurate with a situation any other taxpayer would face in this country.
With respect to the liability of the crown, this is an issue that has been raised. I would point out that under section 60 of the statute, no one is entitled to give a guarantee on behalf of the Government of Canada. Both sections 133 and 135 provide very clearly that no person has a right to receive any compensation or damages, or an indemnity from the crown in respect of this legislation.
I think that is very important because the first nations in this case are not being backstopped by anyone other than themselves. When we talk about aboriginal Canadians standing up and taking responsibility for their own affairs, this legislation shows that it is exactly what is happening. They are not being backstopped by the Government of Canada. This is their own responsibility. It is a collective effort on the part of first nations to guarantee one another's debt and, through that method, to advance themselves economically.
The legislation does contain provisions relating to accountability, and in particular what happens in the event of a difficult circumstance of defalcation or default. There are also extensive co-management or third party management procedures that would happen under the direction of the First Nations Finance Authority. Those matters have been dealt with as well.
This is good legislation and it is indicative of the direction in which we need to move. I spoke earlier of the individuals who have exercised leadership in bringing this forward. Our party compliments them. We are proud of the work they have achieved. We are proud to support this initiative. We think it sets a direction for the country.
Other initiatives in Canada are developing along these same lines. Just this week I met with a very well respected aboriginal leader, Satsan Herb George, who spoke of the governance centre in Chilliwack, British Columbia. This is a proposal that will fit quite naturally in with what is being envisioned by the legislation in front of us, Bill C-20.
What we are talking about is capacity building for first nations to put themselves in a position where they will have governance structures, taxation options, finance options and fiscal management capabilities to lift themselves up and to make social and economic progress on their reserves. This is all very positive.
For my part, I have sometimes worried about the endlessness of the debate that we are having surrounding self-government. The many issues surrounding self-government, the meaning, the scope and the content of that term will, in gradual course, be resolved in Canada, but I think it will be resolved in the same way that other issues in our country have been resolved and that is in an evolutionary and, I would suggest, a conservative and cautious manner that responds in a gradual way to the needs of our diverse Canadian community.
We will make progress. We perhaps will make it cautiously but we will make it with full regard to the consequences of the decisions that we are making.
Let us move forward with the legislation. This is not legislation that answers all of the self-government questions in this nation but it is a start . If we adopt this legislation there will be economic and social progress in Canada for many of the first nations that are in a position and can decide to avail themselves of this legislation. We will be closer to the economic independence and self-sufficiency of which Grand Chief Fontaine speaks.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, it must be simple being the aboriginal affairs critic for that party because members of that party do not seem burdened by any contradictions or contradictions do not seem to bother them.
On the one hand, the member has been waxing poetic about the importance of self-determination and self-governance, and on the other hand, just this week we saw members of the Conservative Party en masse vote against the most historic self-governance and self-determination land claims issue in recent history, only the second such modern land claim in the country since the Nisga'a bill which they also voted against.
For all the member's quite valid language about the importance of the abolition of the Indian Act and that successful economic development models are directly correlated to the degree of self-governance, during the clause by clause consideration of Bill C-20 in committee he and his party voted against eight separate amendments which would have given some input into the placement of the board of directors of these new fiscal institutions.
I would ask him to dwell on, if he could, why he could not see fit to support changes to the appointment process in Bill C-20, of appointing the board of directors which would have given first nations more direction and control over who will get these key commissioner, co-commissioner and director positions in these new fiscal institutions.
Jim Prentice: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that it is a pleasure to be the critic on this subject matter for the Conservative Party. I can also confirm, as my friend has said, that it is a pleasure not to be burdened by contradiction because we are not.
Our party has spoken in a principled way about the way forward. We have consulted with people in the community. We have talked with the AFN and with others. We have put forward a series of policy ideas that take the Conservative Party to the very front of what is going to happen in this country in the next 20 years in terms of the development of self-government and those are based upon a very logical, consistent and principled approach.
I would point out that it is an approach that has enjoyed a great deal of support among the aboriginal Canadians with whom I have spoken. It involves the gradual orderly elimination of the Indian Act with other legislation, which will make it possible for aboriginal Canadians to get on with their lives and to achieve social and economic progress.
We are proud of where we are going. It is a program that will enjoy support in the days ahead. I have spoken of the need to develop a legislative framework which governs the expenditures that the department is making on behalf of aboriginal Canadians.
I would encourage my learned friend to stay involved in the debate and he will continue to be pleased with the progress that the Conservative Party is making.
With respect to his specific question, his party brought forward a series of motions which were soundly defeated at the committee stage. The effect of those motions would have been to essentially take the good work of the respected leaders, the respected aboriginal Canadians who brought Bill C-20 forward to this point, and frozen it by adopting a process of consultation that would have been unworkable and would have made it impossible for the government, or frankly any government, to achieve the necessary unanimity on appointments, and that is why we did not--
The Deputy Speaker: The member will have another five minutes for questions and comments after question period.

Statements By Members
Human RightsHon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate International Human Rights Day. This date was established in 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly to honour the anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948.
The declaration is truly a remarkable document. Its 30 articles deal with the full range of human rights, including political participation, due process under law, education, property rights, and the freedom to marry among consenting spouses.
While virtually every country has signed on to the declaration, we know that the practical recognition of human rights is far from universally observed. This is why it is important to celebrate and reflect on these values that are so fundamental to living a life unburdened by despotism, racism, persecution and arbitrary sanction.
Among the people observing International Human Rights Day, I would especially like to single out our country's vibrant Tibetan community, a great many of whom live in my riding. I commend their efforts and the efforts of all their supporters in promoting human rights during this difficult period in their long history.
Hamilton International AirportMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I call on the government today to provide the appropriate support to Hamilton International Airport and halt the unnecessary Pickering airport proposal. There is no need for a new regional airport east of Toronto when Hamilton International is operating under capacity and provides a more economical and competitive option.
The Pickering airport proposal was first announced in 1972, but it was wisely cancelled in 1975. Why is the government allowing a bad idea to be resurrected?
The infrastructure for a thriving airport in Hamilton is already in place. A new highway in Hamilton leading to the airport has just been opened.
Rather than exploring an obviously bad idea, the government should reverse its decision and invest in Hamilton International through ACAP, the airport capital assistance program.
I particularly call on the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to put some action behind his words. He enjoyed media attention by announcing he was opposed to the Pickering project, yet when he was transport minister, he did absolutely nothing to halt work on the proposal.
Resources should be put into Hamilton International where a positive difference can be made, and not into an expensive boondoggle that makes no sense.
Sports-Québec GalaMr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a few days, on Tuesday, December 21, the 32nd Sports-Québec gala will be held in Laval. This event is an excellent opportunity to promote excellence in sports by recognizing the exceptional performances of the athletes, officials, coaches, teams, managers, volunteers and organizations in Quebec's world of sports.
At this 32nd Sports-Québec gala, 48 finalists, selected from 224 names submitted by sports federations, have been nominated in 16 categories.
I want to congratulate all finalists. The fact that they were nominated is already a reflection of their achievements in their respective fields. I thank all the athletes and the people involved in sports in Quebec. Their excellence brings honour to our society as a whole.
Joint Task Force 2Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 2004 a contingent of our Joint Task Force 2, which is our Canadian Forces special operations group, was awarded the United States presidential unit citation for their extraordinary accomplishments in Afghanistan in the campaign against terrorism.
The citation was awarded to members of JTF2 for extraordinary heroism and action during the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda targets.
JTF2 members captured enemy personnel, equipment and material of significant value and hampered the enemy's ability to conduct operations. They displayed extraordinary gallantry under extremely difficult circumstances and hazardous conditions, which set that unit apart from all others.
On behalf of the Minister of National Defence and all members, we congratulate Joint Task Force 2 for their well-deserved award and thank them for their profound service to our country.
Religious FreedomMr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, modern democracies are founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. It is a principle that I certainly support.
When secular tradition suppresses individual freedoms and disregards tolerance, I think we as a House and as a nation need to stand up. I am particularly concerned with the ban on articles of faith and the wearing of articles of faith in France.
I recently circulated a letter to all members of Parliament, many of whom have signed, expressing to the French government the need to repeal this action as it is directly contrary to our deeply felt convictions that we need to support freedom and democracy.
This affects Muslims, Jews and Christians equally. The fear is that if France entrenches this, it will extend into other jurisdictions.
Individuals must be free to express themselves. We must fight for that freedom. I urge all members of the House to stand on that principle.
Kodak CanadaMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were informed by the president of Kodak Canada that Canadian manufacturing operations would be discontinued by the middle of 2005. It is with deep regret that we received this announcement.
Kodak, at its Mount Dennis location on Eglinton Avenue, has been part of the history of the former city of York, now the city of Toronto, for 100 years. During that time Kodak has been a caring and sharing corporate citizen, supporting community activities, enjoying a committed and dedicated family of employees. Kodak Canada has contributed to the international reputation that Eastman Kodak enjoyed, from traditional imaging to state of the art digital technology.
This is the end of a very special era. It is a very special and sad time for the Kodak family and the York South--Weston community. We are appreciative of the care that Kodak officials have expressed with respect to their employees and the transitional support that will be provided.
Given Kodak's past record of community involvement, we are confident the company will work with all levels of government to find the most appropriate use of its present site with the highest and best return to the community that it has served for so long.
ChristianityMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we approach this holy time in the Christian calendar, the birth of Jesus Christ, Christians in Canada and around the world are facing increased persecution. In response to church bombings in parts of the world, the Vatican is asking the United Nations to recognize Christianophobia as an evil equal to that of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia.
Hostility in Canada to Christian teachings about the sanctity of the family and life has resulted in persecution here at home. The government has launched a campaign of intimidation to silence churches by dispatching tax collectors to threaten the charitable tax status of denominations who speak out against the Liberal government. This attacks the very democratic foundations of our society. The recent persecution of a Christian children's camp by the Ontario Liberal Party over its flawed and unworkable water regulations is but one example of anti-Christian actions here at home.
Governments do not like those who challenge the moral authority they claim for themselves. It is time to challenge what we believe is wrong. To quote St. Pius X, “error is approved by non-resistance, and truth is suffocated by not defending her”.
2004 Farm Family of the YearMs. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as part of the recent annual assembly of the Union des producteurs agricoles, the family of Jean-Louis Charbonneau and Alice Cyr from Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines was named the 2004 farm family of the year. The title is awarded by the Fondation de la famille terrienne.
Jean-Louis Charbonneau represents the 10th consecutive generation of farmers who settled in New France. He was born on his parents' property near the village of Sainte-Thérèse on the north shore of Montreal, a property that has been farmed by his family since the early 1800s. The farm has 200 head of cattle, including 97 dairy cows, and 350 hectares of crop land. The property also has a 20-hectare artificial forest. Over the years, the farm has earned many awards for the quality of its production.
This award is presented annually to a Quebec family that has preserved and inspired values unique to farming in Quebec. From generation to generation in family, social, economic and professional terms. Without question, the family—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ahuntsic.
Violence Against WomenHon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, December 6 marked the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It was also the sad anniversary of the terrible massacre of 14 young women who lost their lives at the École Polytechnique in Montreal.
On this occasion, I want to congratulate agencies such as Bouclier d'Athéna, which provides family services specializing in intervention in domestic violence cases, as well as Arrêt-Source and Transit 24, agencies in my riding that provide help, support and companionship to women who are victims of violence.
Their work and dedication enable us to make progress in the fight against this scourge.
In our days and in today's society, violence against women still exists. Until we break this vicious cycle, every day will be December 6.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a constituent in my riding of Cambridge had to pay $24,000 in order to get his sister-in-law into our great country. Her three and a half year old child is still waiting to get in. Clearly his sister-in-law did not work on the immigration minister's campaign.
This person is a certified surgical nurse in her former country, but she lost that specialized job when her employers found out she was a single mother. For that reason she decided to join us here in Canada. Health care workers are needed in Cambridge, yet this professional is not certified to work here. This nurse will not quit. She wrote her nursing exams for Ontario this week. Her dream is to help Canadians, to build a better life for herself in Canada and to get her child here as soon as possible, a little girl she has not seen for over two years.
My constituent wonders why Liberal campaign workers are more important than nurses. He also wonders why priorities are put on stripper programs rather than reuniting mothers with their toddlers, and nurses with patients.
Yee Hong Seniors CentresMr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 28 the fourth Yee Hong seniors residence officially opened in Scarborough. The Yee Hong family of seniors residences began in Scarborough over 15 years ago. With new centres in Mississauga and Markham, it is now a Canadian leader in culturally appropriate senior care.
These centres do not just provide accommodation. They also serve the broader community with meals on wheels, palliative care, counselling, seniors activities and skill teaching for caregivers using highly skilled and motivated volunteers and professional staff.
Firmly based in and supported by the Chinese Canadian community, Yee Hong serves seniors of all cultures, with residential options for Japanese, South Asian and Filipino Canadians. Professionals from around the world visit Yee Hong to see their operations.
Congratulations to Dr. Joseph Wong, the board, the donors, their great staff and all the volunteers who make Yee Hong such a success.
Automobile IndustryMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on November 2 the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council tabled its report, “A Call for Action: A Canadian Auto Strategy”.
Once the report was made public, I asked the Minister of Industry when he would act on recommendations. He stated, “Over the next couple of weeks we will be putting together the final touches on an automotive strategy for Canada”.
Nearly another month passed when I again pressed the minister about inaction and he said, “In terms of cabinet consideration I don't know the degree to which I can be open about that, but I would like to think that we can get feedback before Christmas”.
For the record, all I want for Christmas is a Canadian auto policy.
The CAPC report was more than two years in the making and had significant government involvement. The recommendations, therefore, are no surprise. We need to move on investment opportunities like the GM Beacon project so we do not lose more investment.
It is time to move on the CAPC recommendations; fight back against international subsidies that steal Canadian jobs; question markets that are closed to Canadian automobile sales, yet sell in our markets; and take this opportunity to be the pioneers of the manufacture, design and assembly of a new wave of environmentally friendly vehicles that Canadians manufacture and assemble and have those jobs.
Youth at RiskLynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago Delores Bird was found dead in Saskatoon following a night of drinking and taking pills. Alone and wandering the street, she was looking for a place to sleep. Delores had dropped out of school. Her mother was out of town. She was left to fend for herself. She was a child. She was 11 years old.
This is by no means an isolated case. In Saskatoon alone it is estimated there are 1,000 other children like Delores Bird, out of school and on the streets. Every one of them is at risk.
Delores's death must not go unnoticed in this House and in our communities. The tragedy of her case must not be lost in jurisdictional wrangling.
I urge all parliamentarians to raise their voice in outrage and to act in order to ensure that no other Canadian child dies like Delores did.
Universal Declaration of Human RightsMr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, December 10 is Human Rights Day. On the initiative of René Cassin, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in New York.
We must make every effort to uphold the rights of women, protect refugees, give human rights priority in economic matters, promote respect for the fundamental rights of aboriginal peoples and reinforce human rights legislation and international institutions.
It is the duty of each parliamentarian here and elsewhere throughout the world to ensure that democracy is central to the political agenda.
To all those who, on a daily basis, serve humanity by fighting for freedom, we give our thanks.
Esteem TeamMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Esteem Team program, a national not for profit organization that leaves a great impact on youth with their message and challenge for them to be the best they can be.
Esteem's vision is to inspire young people in grades 4 through 12 in the schools, community centres and sports clubs. High performance athletes from this program spark imagination, thought, dialogue and help youth understand and accept triumph as well as failure.
Over the last dozen years, Okanagan Landing school in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap has had the good fortune of hosting a member of this great team of sports people and communicators.
I support this program as it can make a difference in young people's lives.
Roy OverforsMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my sentiments to those of the hon. members for Laval, Sackville—Eastern Shore, and Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca in expressing our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Roy Overfors.
Roy served with the House of Commons security service for 24 years ensuring the safety and protection of MPs, employees and thousands of visitors to the Parliament Buildings.
Roy was a loving husband and father. It was no secret to his friends on Parliament Hill that Roy loved the game of softball, both as a player and an umpire in many leagues.
For 10 years Roy was captain of Happy Hour Gang, a championship team that played in many exciting finals and won the Parliament Hill Softball League trophy in 1999.
His friends and fellow players are therefore proud to name the championship trophy the Roy Overfors Memorial Cup to honour the memory of a great sportsman and dear friend.
PovertyMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report “One Million Too Many: Implementing Solutions to Child Poverty in Canada” was presented on November 24 by Campaign 2000. It comes 15 years after the government made a commitment to eliminate poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
This report clearly demonstrates that more and more people are using food banks and are victims of social exclusion. I am outraged; it is disgraceful. More than one million children live in poverty.
The report proposes concrete solutions: increase the availability of decently paid jobs, raise child benefits, create an adequate system of child care based on the Quebec model, expand affordable housing and increase the Canada social transfer.
The government needs only the courage to implement these recommendations because it clearly has the means.

Oral Question Period
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the immigration minister refused again to say how many ministerial permits she issued during the campaign. She did state, “I referred the issue in question to the Ethics Commissioner”. We know that is not true. The Ethics Commissioner confirmed that the only issue referred to him was the awarding of one permit to her campaign worker, which occurred after she got caught. The minister herself said it had the appearance of breaking the rules.
The minister has abused her position, ducks accountability, refuses to answer questions, and now misleads the House. Having lost public confidence, will she now resign her post?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been appointed to do a job. We have heard in the House about issues dealing with a refugee review. This is being worked on by the minister. The minister is also working on a citizenship act. She is ready to look at the issues that everyone has been complaining about with regard to visas. The minister is busy. She has a job to do and she is getting on with it.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as we speak, public confidence continues to wain. The case of preferential ministerial treatment for a campaign worker has snowballed into Liberal staff visiting strippers on immigration business, application files being discussed in campaign offices, questionable expenses, threats to ministers and members of Parliament, and now cash for permits.
The Prime Minister's continued defence of the minister's mounting ethical breaches confirms the old adage “who do you know in the PMO” is alive and well.
The Ethics Commissioner has given the green light. Will the Prime Minister do away with his well deserved reputation for dithering and simply fire the minister?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody is dithering. As soon as this item was raised, the matter was referred to the Ethics Commissioner. We want to wait for this independent officer of Parliament to issue his report. It is pretty obvious that this is the appropriate course of action here.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner is there to investigate, not act as a shield for ministers. The National Post has called editorially for the minister to resign. The Ottawa Citizen questions her remaining as minister. Even the Liberal bible, the Toronto Star , says the minister should go. Internationally, there have been stories in the American media, the London Times and the Irish Telegraph .
If the minister will not listen to the House or the media, will she listen to the calls from Canadians who are asking her to restore confidence and competence in her system? Will she stop making a mockery of herself and her department, and simply resign before being shuffled over the Christmas holidays?
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I always find this very interesting. The House asked for an independent ethics counsellor. Members went on and on about an independent ethics counsellor. We now have an independent ethics counsellor, but they are second-guessing the counsellor. They do not want him to finish his job and do what he is supposed to do because they want to second-guess him. We just cannot take seriously anything being said by the group across the way.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister continues to evade questions regarding her conduct during the election. Using the Ethics Commissioner as her shield no longer works. The Ethics Commissioner has plainly said, “There is nothing preventing the minister from commenting while under investigation”.
Will the minister stand in this place and tell Canadians, once and for all, how many ministerial permits she issued in total during the last election and how many she issued to individuals affecting her own riding?
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, we are back again: let us not let the ethics counsellor do his job; let us just jump the queue and do it for him instead.
The minister has repeatedly said that there are no statistics kept in the department on visas issued by riding. She cannot give something that is not there. There is no information on visas issued by riding. That is it.
Jim Prentice: Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been telling the House that she is unable to answer questions because they are being considered by the Ethics Commissioner, but the Ethics Commissioner has revealed that this is untrue.
I will tell the House what the minister has been working at to avoid answering the tough questions. The minister has been repeatedly misleading the House. This amounts to nothing less than contempt. When will this disgraceful minister resign?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, opposition members hurl outrageous allegations over and over again. They impugn people's integrity.
The minister of immigration has been in this House day after day responding to the questions and outrageous misleading allegations of the opposition. Why do we not just let the Ethics Commissioner do his work? We will receive the report. He is an independent officer of Parliament. I think they should respect this independent officer.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, on International Human Rights Day, the government needs to examine its conscience. In 2002 Parliament modified the composition of the Immigration and Refugee Board, reducing the number of board members from two to one, and creating an appeal division. The appeal division is still not operational and the minister does not understand how urgent it is that it be implemented.
How can a government that denounces the democratic deficit tolerate this delay in carrying out the will of Parliament and what is it waiting for to implement the refugee appeal division as called for by law?
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, this is only one part of the refugee process. We are looking, as a department, at the whole refugee process. There are many components of it that we feel need to be dealt with. There is going to be a complete review of the refugee process, including Iran.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the appeal division is a very important part of the legislation. Amnesty International, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and many other groups condemn and denounce Canada's refusal to implement the refugee appeal division.
Will the government take the opportunity of this International Human Rights Day to announce the implementation of the refugee appeal division?
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, there is a refugee process that needs reviewing and we are reviewing it. There is no point in cherry picking by taking one piece out of it today and doing another tomorrow. We are looking at the refugee process and we are reviewing it. This will be done. It is being worked on already.
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the security certificate process causes suffering for families who see one of their members imprisoned and threatened with expulsion from Canada, as part of an unfair process which upsets the balance between security and individual rights. The current procedure includes serious infringements of basic human rights, in particular, hearings at which the accused is not present and the lack of appeal.
Does the government intend to completely review the legislation governing security certificates and stop sanctioning a legal system completely devoid of the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, security certificates are one of the measures used to remove non-Canadians from this country when they pose a threat to national security. It is an exceptional measure.
Since 1991 some 27 security certificates have been issued. In fact, the security certificate, as a tool to protect the national security of Canadians, has been reviewed by the highest level, the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been found to be constitutional in terms of striking the right balance between national security and human rights.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, is the government insensitive to the human drama of those jailed through an unjust process and does it realize the urgency of changing the security certificates to put an end to this intolerable situation in a society that calls itself democratic?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, security certificates are one of the tools we use to protect the national security of Canadians. Security certificates, while obviously controversial in the minds of some, have been reviewed by the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that the security certificate, as a tool, is constitutional. It does strike the right balance.
I would hope that the hon. member is not suggesting that we should not use, in the appropriate circumstances, all the tools available to us to protect the security and safety of Canadians.
Securities IndustryMr. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, David Dodge said that securities commissions, police forces and the Crown lack expertise when the time comes to draw up rule violation files. He recognized that white collar crimes have a huge impact on workers and small investors and also hurt Canada on foreign markets.
When will the government take white collar crimes seriously?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the observations of the bank governor, Mr. Dodge. As members know, the government commissioned the wise persons' report. It addressed a number of the issues that were raised by the governor over securities regulation. The government is taking that into consideration.
We hope all members will find their way clear to support the concept of a national securities regulator.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, the wise persons' report called on the government to act. What we are getting instead is delay and obfuscation.
Canada is like the wild west of financial markets, and that is not me talking. That is the Governor of the Bank of Canada. White collar crimes are despicable. They hurt workers, pensioners and small investors. We see nothing being done about it.
We have had high profile stock market scandals, Bre-X, YBM and LiveNet, but no one involved has gone to jail. When will the government give some teeth to our securities legislation?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the area of securities regulation is a shared jurisdiction. Presently, we have a variety of provinces that have securities regulators.
The view of the government is that the wise persons' report is the way to go, that we should have a national securities regulator and that the current passport system, which presently is being implemented, is not as effective as it could be. In some respects we agree with the observations of the hon. member.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister did not deny that a former staff member of the immigration minister was under investigation for security. We are not asking her to comment on such an investigation. We want her to confirm that an investigation is underway.
Giving us the facts on this does not breach any rules. The question is simple and the answer can be one word, yes or no. Which is it?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, not only would it be inappropriate for me to confirm or deny whether an investigation is ongoing, it would be inappropriate for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to confirm or deny whether there is ongoing investigation.
I would hope the hon. member would respect that.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that security officials have confirmed that one of the minister's former staff is being probed for allegations relating to national security. This is really simple. We are not asking her to make comments on the investigation, just to confirm if there is in fact any police investigation, RCMP or otherwise. She knows she is allowed to say yes or no to that.
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but it is inappropriate for me to either confirm or deny the existence of any RCMP investigation. As I say, I would hope the hon. members would respect that.
MarriageMr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I hope after the Minister of Justice made his comments in the House yesterday, he went away and actually read the decision of the Supreme Court on same sex marriage. If he did, he would have found that the Supreme Court refused to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. In fact, it sent the matter back for Parliament to decide.
Will the justice minister stop misleading Canadians and acknowledge that the decision to implement same sex marriage is not a constitutional requirement, but a policy choice that the Liberals are making?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never pronounce on a judgment until I have read it first. That is exactly what I caution the member opposite. If he looks at the judgment, it clearly declares--
Peter MacKay: You pronounced on it first, minister. You should have waited for the decision.
Irwin Cotler: If the member wants to hear the answer, I will give it. It clearly declares that the opposite sex requirement for marriage is unconstitutional. It is right through the judgment. Otherwise, we could not have a unanimous judgment extending civil marriage for gays and lesbians.
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. In fact, that is the question the Supreme Court of Canada refused to answer. It sent it back to Parliament.
The Prime Minister told Canadians that his bill on same sex marriage would protect religious organizations. Yesterday, the Supreme Court told him that the bill's provisions about religious protection were outside the jurisdiction of Parliament.
How does the Prime Minister now intend to statutorily protect not only religious organizations, but also public officials with moral concerns about same sex marriages now that the Supreme Court of Canada has told him his--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I am now convinced that he did not read the judgment, and still has not read it. If he had read it, he would understand that it being an advisory opinion, it cannot direct Parliament to do anything. All it can do is give advice. That is the nature of a reference. It is up to us to undertake that responsibility, to introduce legislation in Parliament, and we will do that. It will protect religious organizations because, under the charter, the court has said that religious freedom is absolutely protected, contrary to what the hon. member said.
Textile and Clothing IndustryMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance said he was surprised by the sudden interest shown by the Bloc Québécois in the textile industry. However, six months ago, in fact, the Bloc was proposing a rescue plan to help that industry, and was also condemning job losses. As recently as yesterday, the president of Peerless made a plea for help, on behalf of the industry.
The Minister of Finance promised an assistance plan for the industry by December 31. Can he tell us if he intends to take into consideration the proposals by the Bloc Québécois' proposals and in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Finance?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, as members know, with regard to this matter, an all party report from the finance committee made a number of suggestions to the minister as to how he could appropriately deal with this matter. The minister has those under consideration.
As well, there have been numerous representatives from caucus, the member for Ahuntsic, the member for Brome--Missisquoi, the former member for Compton--Stanstead, the member for Beauce, the member for Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel, the member for Etobicoke North, the member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Guelph, all of whom have worked very hard on this file.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that I have been trying to save the textile industry in my riding of Drummond for the past year. The government has yet to take action. We are talking about 40,000 jobs that have already been lost since 1997 in the textile and clothing industry. Behind these numbers are individuals, many of whom are older workers.
In light of this reality, will the minister restore the program for older worker adjustment, which the government abolished in 1997?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the textile and apparel industry, like many other industries in the country, is going through a very substantial transformation.
The government has spent over $100 million in the last few years helping the industry to adjust. We are developing a program that will help with the adjustment in the textile and apparel industry going forward. We are very pleased with the progress that we are making and the consultations we are having with the industry.
Softwood LumberMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday at the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, the Free Trade Lumber Council sounded an alarm: the industry is at the end of its rope and is having difficulty absorbing the $300 million in legal fees associated with the unending softwood lumber dispute.
Does the Minister of International Trade intend to reimburse these staggering sums the industry has to pay to argue its case at international tribunals?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will convey the views of the hon. member to my colleague, but at the same time, I reaffirm what is a very important two-track approach in Canada. We are continuing litigation as it involves the WTO and NAFTA and challenges of the U.S. duties. At the same time, we are negotiating for a long term resolution. There is a price to pay.
Robert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in the context of this extraordinary challenge mounted by the U.S. government, industry representatives have again called on the federal government for help in getting through this critical phase. Reimbursement of legal fees and the availability of interest-free loans to prevent bankruptcy would go a long way in saving an entire industry.
What is the government waiting for to implement a true aid program for the industry, which it has been promising since 2002?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question. I said that I would share these concerns with my colleagues and that is exactly what I will do.
MarriageMr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the veil is off the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage. The Liberals misled Canadians when they told us that their legislation would protect religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that this provision of their act was not even within federal jurisdiction. In fact, across the country marriage commissioners are being told to resign if they will not perform ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs.
The Liberals told Canadians that they would defend the traditional definition of marriage and they did not. They told Canadians that they would protect religious freedoms and they have not. Why should we believe that they will protect--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the hon. member to read question three of the reference when the government asked the Supreme Court as to whether religious freedom was protected. The Supreme Court unanimously answered “yes”. With regard to the solemnization of marriage, it would corroborate with the provinces.
TaxationMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government threatened Bishop Henry of Calgary when he dared to talk about Catholic teachings during the last election, and it did it using revenue agency's tax cops. When the bishop talked about these threats, Scott Reid, the Prime Minister's spokesman, called the bishop's comments, “a ridiculous and unconscionable allegation”. Scott Reid's attack on the bishop is despicable, an attack on his honesty and integrity.
Will he be made to apologize, and will he be disciplined?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that Canadians can have confidence that their charitable contributions go to the places where they are intended to go, and that churches understand the rules. I reported in the House the other day that churches had laid out very clearly to their members the dos and don'ts of this matter. That is the law. The agency is required to enforce the law, and it is very good for the integrity of charities in the country.
Social DevelopmentMrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development has spent quite a bit of time building expectations about his day care program. He has allowed many Canadians, especially low income parents, to believe that they will get all the free day care they need under his plan.
Could the minister confirm that the Liberals will not follow through on their promise to provide free universal day care as the Prime Minister promised?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entirely mistaken. The campaign promise, as reiterated in the Speech from the Throne, is for a national early learning and child care system, according to the principles of quality, universal inclusiveness, accessibility and developmental. There has never been any kind of mention about it being a free system.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, the reality is this day care program is not universal. It is a selective, targeted subsidy for professional urban parents who work nine to five.
Could the minister confirm how this universal day care program ignores the needs of stay at home parents, shift workers and families with important language and cultural needs who fall outside of the minister's universe?
Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, the way in which Canadians look at important programs like education, health care and child care is that those are things that should be available to all Canadians as a way to improve the development of young children. That is what a national early learning and child care system is about. That is why it exists. That is why we are going ahead the way we are going ahead.
DomtarHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. It is about the very tragic announcement yesterday of 400 jobs being lost in Cornwall, Ontario at the Domtar plant.
Can the minister provide assurances to my constituents and everybody else who is going to be losing their jobs just after Christmas that all the services of Human Resources Development Canada for training, benefits and all other measures to assist them in finding employment will be deployed forthwith?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member for Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry brought this to my attention, I had my officials immediately contact the union and the company. In fact, today my officials will be meeting with the employer and all the related individuals with the intent of establishing a system whereby we will streamline the process and in fact accept claims on site so that we can accelerate the benefits system and also the reintegration of said workers into the marketplace in the short--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.
Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessMr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on this human rights day, serious concerns are being raised about the security certificate process. This process allows for arrest and detention using secret evidence. It suspends normal court rules, preventing cross-examination and accepting evidence by torture. It allows deportation to persecution. At least five men have been detained under this process, some now for up to four years.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister act now to protect basic human rights, end detention without charges and ensure that no one is deported to torture or persecution?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises the issue of security certificates. I have already addressed that in the context of them being one of the tools we can use to protect the safety and security of Canadians.
However, this is an exceptional remedy. That is why it has been used very infrequently since 1991 when it was first legislated. I will also point out to the hon. member that we in this country have not deported anyone to any country where they would face a substantial risk of torture. We have not done so.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday a student and women's activist was deported from Vancouver to Iran. This woman, who had previously been jailed in Iran for her political activism, today stands charged in an Islamic revolutionary court for leaving Iran illegally. She could face the death penalty on this charge. Her immediate family members all live in Canada.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify this deportation given that just last month Canada tabled a resolution at the United Nations about Iran's unacceptable human rights record and its treatment of women?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, we have one of the most generous systems as it relates to immigration and refugees anywhere in the world, but we expect people to obey the rules. In fact, if people come here illegally they are obviously requested to leave. They have the opportunity to have a pre-removal risk assessment done. That risk assessment takes into account what the individual will face in all likelihood if deported to a particular country. At the end of the day, we have a system--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon--Souris.
Border SecurityMr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the recent visit of one Texan, U.S. President George Bush, it appears that another George from Texas was busy smuggling revolvers, machine guns and ammunition over the Canadian border.
George Farnsworth, wanted in Canada for child abduction, is suspected to have easily slipped over an unmanned border at Lacolle, Quebec, with weapons destined for gangs in Montreal. Is the minister jeopardizing Canadian safety with this porous border crossing policy?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, far from having a porous border security policy, we have invested over $8 billion since 2001 in national security, including border security. We have created a new border agency. That agency provides service at land borders, seaports and airports. We are constantly evaluating the level of service that is provided.
If the hon. member thinks that any system here, in the United States or in the United Kingdom is absolutely 100% risk free, no, it is not. That is not--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
Merv Tweed: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want to know is how it is working.
There are 107 border crossings in Quebec alone. Forty-seven of them have gates and only three are manned 24 hours a day. An official has said, “We are being told not to put ourselves in dangerous situations. When alone we are to lock our doors and we don't take chances. Upon the slightest doubt, we allow vehicles to pass”.
In the last few years many things have changed and Canadians are very concerned about their safety. Is it still going to be government policy to continue with unmanned borders?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, we assess the risk at border crossings on a regular basis. In fact, at some border crossings that risk is assessed on a daily basis. We will continue to assess the risk at border crossings in this country. Border crossings will be dealt with appropriately on the basis of that ongoing risk assessment.
JusticeDarrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, the man accused of killing Vernon auxiliary RCMP officer Glen Eveley in a crash with a stolen vehicle has walked away from jail due to errors which RCMP have called “an accidental release”. This is no comfort to a city that has suffered at least three murders in eight years due to failures of the prison and parole system.
In October, the Deputy Prime Minister told me she would review the system. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, is she at peace with herself knowing that her inaction has caused so much misery to so many people?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, on the situation to which the hon. member refers, while I cannot comment on the specific situation, I believe this actually was a matter that involved provincial corrections officials. I would ask the hon. member to go and check his facts.
In terms of the review of our parole system, I indeed have indicated that I think it is important to constantly assess whether our corrections and parole system puts public safety first. I am more than willing to have the Standing Committee on Justice take up that matter and offer any recommendations--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.
FisheriesMr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal government had two opportunities to respect the call of British Columbians for a judicial inquiry into the management of the salmon fishery, and twice refused to do so, this in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister promised to make addressing western alienation one of his many highest priorities.
He said in a speech, “There is no question in my mind that B.C.'s sense of alienation is not a myth, that it is real”. Yes, it is real, and it got even more real yesterday.
Why do the Prime Minister and his government continue to treat British Columbians like second class citizens?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in fact treating the matter of the Fraser River salmon fishery this year very seriously. In fact, that is the reason we have appointed a former chief justice of the B.C. Court of Appeal to head a panel, the integrated harvest planning committee, to look into this matter.
He is a very well-respected former judge. I know the members opposite do not have much respect for the courts or for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they ought to have respect for Mr. Williams, who is an outstanding British Columbian.
Tourism IndustryMr. Sébastien Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region has benefited from the program to extend the tourist season since 2002. To date, this program has been very promising for the 35 participating businesses. The spinoffs for our region are almost $4 million. But these businesses need this program to be extended for another two years.
Can the minister, who has seen the overall results of this program, assure our businesses in the tourism industry that he will extend this program, which, unfortunately, expires today?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Bloc Québécois is finally taking an interest in this matter. This is the first time they have raised it in the House.
For several weeks now, we have had representations from regional tourist organizations alerting us to this problem.
We are working with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to find short term solutions. We are particularly concerned with the impact on the families involved, and it is our absolute hope that they may have a good Christmas. We will find a very short-term solution to this problem.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, first, I would remind the minister that this matter has been under consideration for one month already and that my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, has already questioned the minister about this.
Does the minister understand that our tourism industry needs to start planning for its next season now and that it needs to know immediately whether or not this program will be extended? I remind the minister that 181 additional jobs are at stake and this is a major issue for our region.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, I must say that the Bloc Québécois tends to want to take credit for all the things it does not do, quite remarkable.
We have already, in the past several weeks, received representations from the Association touristique régionale or ATR. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and my department have since joined forces to try to find a solution. There are two problems: a short term problem, from now until next March, and another longer term and more general problem. First, we want to address priority areas. That is why we are working to find a short term solution, so that the families affected may enjoy the holidays.
Natural ResourcesMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, how long does it take to deliver a promise? It is now 166 days since the Prime Minister promised Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador that they would receive 100% of the provincial revenues from the offshore development.
Since then there have been some meetings, mainly initiated by the provinces, and now the Prime Minister and his ministers have punted the file into the hands of a bureaucrat, Mr. Himelfarb. Is this because the Prime Minister considers his ministers incompetent, incapable or insensitive to Atlantic Canadians? This Christmas, will there be a lump of coal in Atlantic Canadians' stockings or a deal on oil and gas?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, as members know, this has been quite an active file for the finance minister and he has been a very active participant in the negotiations and discussions on an ongoing basis, somewhat more intensely at times and sometimes less intensely. These discussions are carrying on as we speak.
National DefenceCheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, two Canadian airmen died when their CH-146 Griffon helicopter crashed on a search and rescue mission that was beyond the craft's capabilities.
A Canadian sailor died in the hurry to launch a submarine that was not seaworthy.
In the rush to replace the vehicle in which three Canadians soldiers died in Afghanistan, stress cracks suggest its replacement is not ready for service either.
Why does the government insist on jeopardizing the lives of Canadian soldiers with flawed equipment?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are tragic accidents. I want to assure the House that all our services, the air force, the navy and the army, take these individual incidents extremely seriously. They conduct rigorous investigations to ascertain their causes and we take the steps to make sure they do not happen again.
It is a myth to say they do not have good equipment and it is certainly a myth to suggest that they are not professionally approaching the way in which we manage these very difficult situations.
HealthYasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Public Health. What is the Public Health Agency doing to warn Canadians about the danger of malaria while visiting the Dominican Republic?
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Public Health Agency of Canada responded very quickly to the reports of malaria in tourists coming from the Dominican Republic. Last week the agency posted a travel advisory on the website. The agency has been collaborating with its stakeholders, the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health, the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies, travel health insurance operators and all the Canadian tour operators, as well as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.
The Public Health Agency wants Canadians to know that before going to the Dominican Republic they should see their family doctor or a travel doctor to get an independent risk assessment. They should try to avoid getting bitten and should let anybody know when they come back of their--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
Canada Post CorporationMr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the community of Grandmother's Bay in my northern Saskatchewan constituency has long been fighting for access to federal postal service. At present members of this 400-person community have to get their mail from La Ronge, over 100 kilometres away.
I have inquired repeatedly on this issue, but at this point Canada Post is still refusing to commit to providing postal service to Grandmother's Bay.
What will it take for this Liberal government to recognize that Canadians living in remote and northern communities deserve the same access to service as other Canadians?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is the most visible face of the federal government throughout rural Canada. We have a commitment to maintain that visibility.
On matters of specific cases, it is an operational matter. I will take up the point raised by the member with the officials at Canada Post.
Human Resources and Skills DevelopmentMr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-28, the compassionate care bill, is to be reviewed early in 2005.
Canadians in need have discovered that the bill is seriously flawed. They are humiliated and demoralized at a crucial time when they are desperate to care for their loved ones.
Will the minister set a date for the review and will he open the process to allow all Canadians, including those who are seriously in need and seriously affected, to have input into that review?
Joe Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the interest in this most laudable of programs that we initiated very early on in the year. It heartens me that many members on both sides of the House support it.
We are in the first year of the program and we committed at the very beginning to make any changes subsequent to the accumulation of data so that we could make any adjustments that reflected the real needs of those who find themselves in a most tragic and trying moment in their lives.
However, right now, as the member knows, the mechanism is triggered by a declaration by an attendant doctor and it applies to immediate family--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on November 2, in response to a question from the Bloc regarding negotiations with the Cree nation in the James Bay issue, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said the negotiations were moving along nicely. The Cree are worried now, and a breakdown in negotiations could have serious consequences.
There is not much time left before the March deadline; can the minister guarantee, here in this House, that negotiations will occur within this time frame and will conclude by March 2005?
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not recall swimmingly, but we are optimistic in terms of these negotiations, as I said before, and I continue to be optimistic that we will see a resolution very soon.
International CooperationMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Cooperation.
The international community has launched a series of initiatives to promote financial systems that work for the poor, highlighting microfinance as an important tool for achieving the millennium development goal.
Could the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House what Canada is doing to contribute to international developments in microfinance?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member knows, as I do, that there is no shortage of entrepreneurs in developing countries, but there is a shortage of credit. That is why we are such a strong supporter of microfinance and why today I am announcing $4 million in new microfinance initiatives.
I am joined in assigning a great priority to this private sector development by the Prime Minister, who co-authored that excellent report at the United Nations.
TaxationMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in a frightening violation of the separation of church and state during the election campaign, the revenue agency called Calgary bishop Fred Henry and threatened his diocese's charitable tax status because he dared to express Catholic moral teaching during the campaign.
The bishop told the media what happened and yesterday Scott Reid, the Prime Minister's spokesman, said that the bishop's allegation was “ridiculous and unconscionable”.
I would like to know if Scott Reid will be forced to apologize for attacking the integrity and honesty of the bishop of Calgary.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, although I am not sure if he does, that I am not permitted by law to comment on any kind of interaction involving the Canada Revenue Agency.
I will say, however, that the law is very clear that churches and other charitable organizations can involve themselves in political activity to a certain degree but not in partisan activity. I think that is an entirely appropriate law to preserve the integrity of the charities in this country.
Points of OrderGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, during question period I indicated that Mr. Bryan Williams was a former chief justice of the B.C. Court of Appeal.
He was in fact the former chief justice of the B.C. Supreme Court.

Routine Proceedings
Certificate of NominationHon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 110(2) I am tabling a certificate of nomination with respect to the President of the National Research Council of Canada.
This certificate stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology.
Government Response to PetitionsRobert Thibault: Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActHon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the HouseHon. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in both official languages.
In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, October 22, 2004, your committee has considered Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and agreed on Wednesday, December 8, 2004, to report it with amendments.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
On December 9, 2004, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee adopted a motion recommending to the government that the RCMP maintain the nine detachments in Quebec that were discussed during our hearings and that it agree to maintain or restore the critical mass of officers per detachment.
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, in both official languages.
Your committee studied Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, which was referred to the committee on October 18, 2004, and is reporting the same back without amendment.
I take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee from both sides of the House for their diligence. I would also like to thank the committee staff.
Bill C-36. On the Order: Government Orders:

December 10, 2004 —The Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform—Second reading of Bill C-36, an act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That Bill C-36, an act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee, reported without amendment, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chuck Strahl): The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, and read the third time and passed)
PetitionsDarrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap concerning serious violent crimes by repeat offenders living at the Vernon halfway house.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to require that Correctional Service Canada take stronger steps to protect law-abiding citizens by ending statutory release, informing the public immediately when a violent offender does not report back on time from day parole or other release into the community, and immediately investigate why the Vernon halfway house has the worst record in Canada for its inmates committing violent crimes.
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition signed by constituents from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to ensure the protection of our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that children are protected from sexual exploitation by raising the age of consent from 14 to 18 years of age.
I am pleased to present this petition to the House today. I am also pleased to have received beautifully signed ribbons which hang on the wall of my office in honour of these people's efforts.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRobert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 14 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 14Mr. John Cummins: With regard to the used hovercraft, the Liv Viking, which was recently acquired by the Canadian Coast Guard base at Vancouver International Airport to provide search and rescue service: ( a ) what was the original purchase price of the Liv Viking when originally constructed; ( b ) what was the purchase price of the Liv Viking paid by the Government of Canada; ( c ) what was the cost of the refit; ( d ) what were the design costs; ( e ) what were the costs of survey engineering and related feasibility work; ( f ) what were the travel and associated expenses of the Coast Guard, Public Works and other government agencies associated with the selection, design, purchase and refit of the Liv Viking; ( g ) what were the total administrative charges levied against the project; ( h ) what was the cost to put the Liv Viking into service; ( i ) when was the Liv Viking originally constructed; ( j ) when did it go into service in Europe; ( k ) what was the nature of the service in Europe; ( l ) when was it withdrawn from service in Europe; ( m ) why was it withdrawn from service in Europe; ( n ) how many hours of service did it have in Europe; ( o ) what happened to the hovercraft when it was taken out of service in Europe; ( p ) what are the maximum wind conditions (in knots) in the Coast Guard's Search and Rescue (SAR) Area 303 (where the Liv Viking will be expected to operate) in (i) spring, (ii) summer, (iii) fall, and (iv) winter and is the craft certified to operate in such conditions; (q) what is the wave height (percentage of time) in SAR Area 303 for the following wave height conditions – 0-1 metre, 1-2 meters, 2-3 metres and 3 or more metres – in (i) spring, (ii) summer, (iii) fall, and (iv) winter and has the craft been accredited to operate in such conditions; ( r ) do the operational performance requirements ensure that the craft has the ability to (i) undertake search and rescue operations in wave heights of 3 metres and winds of 40 knots, (ii) maintain a speed of 35 knots for a continuous period of 8 hours; and (iii) maintain a speed of 20 knots in wave heights of 1 metre and winds of 25 knots; ( s ) does the Liv Viking have a bow-ramp for use in medical evacuations and if not, why not; ( t ) as part of the refit, were the “lift” engines replaced, if not, why not, and how many hours have they been in service; ( u ) after going into service in Canada has the Liv Viking had any breakdowns or repairs, if so what were they; and ( v ) what kind of diving platform does the Liv Viking have, how do rescue divers enter the water from it, how do rescue divers and those in the water in need of assistance get aboard, and are they able to get onboard without assistance?
(Return tabled)
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.
Like my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—the Bloc Québécois Indian Affairs and Northern Development critic—who also delivered a speech at second reading on November 19 in favour of this bill, I agree with this act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
This bill essentially provides the first nations with financial management tools. Like many other bills, the bill being presented to this House today is not perfect, but it could help in creating a environment that would help first nations to assume their financial independence.
It was very important for us to support this bill to help the first nations to assume a certain financial independence or least much more than they had in the past.
I sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and we heard from a number of first nations officials, who supported this bill, not to mention those whom we met privately, as part of our parliamentarian duties.
Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois cares about the self-government claims of the aboriginals, since we too have many such claims in Quebec. In fact, we prefer the term “sovereignist”. In our opinion, true self-government is achieved when a nation controls all of its economic levers. First nations that will avail themselves of the services provided under Bill C-20 will be able to play a more active role in their economy and promote private investments on their territory. This legislation will give first nations access to tools that are already available to other levels of government and in turn access to financial markets, among other things.
However, we warn the federal government not to succumb to the temptation of using Bill C-20 to opt out of its fiduciary responsibilities towards aboriginal people. It remains the government's job to address inequality between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. I can assure the government that we will keep a close watch.
For the benefit of the public and of those members who may not be very familiar with the bill, I should mention this legislation proposes the establishment of four financial institutions. I will explain them briefly.
The first one is the first nations tax commission, which will replace the Indian taxation advisory board. It will be responsible for the property tax rule approval process, and its streamlining will also help strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and those of taxpayers, when rates are set.
The second institution is the first nations financial management board. The board will set financial standards and provide the independent and professional property assessment services required by first nations that want to take advantage of the borrowing pool of the first nations finance authority.
The third institution, namely the first nations finance authority, will help first nations communities that will adhere to the legislative scheme to issue securities collectively and to raise long term capital at preferential rates for highways, water supply systems, sewers and, of course, other infrastructure projects.
Finally, the first nations statistical institute will help all first nations communities to meet their local data needs, while encouraging participation in Statistics Canada's integrated national systems and their use.
The establishment of a new financial relationship between the federal government and the first nations is nothing new. Already in 1983, the Penner report, a report by the special parliamentary committee on aboriginal self-government, recommended that the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the first nations be redefined. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples made the same recommendation in 1996. Bill C-20 is a step along the road toward greater economic autonomy for first nations.
Here is a brief historical overview of Bill C-20. Before it established a supervisory structure to administer the new legislation, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development created the Indian Taxation Advisory Board in early 1989. In September 2003, 107 first nations began to tax real property. After the Kamloops amendments, in 1988, if I am not mistaken, a number of events strengthened the existing support for the restructuring of financial relations between the first nations and the federal government.
In 1991, the Department of Finance undertook a review of its policy on Indian taxation and, in 1993, made public the Working Paper on Indian Government Taxation.
In 1995, the First Nations Financial Institute or FNFI was created and, at the instigation of the Westbank First Nation, it was then federally incorporated. The main objective of the FNFI was to provide investment opportunities to first nations in order to ensure long-term financing of their public debt. With the adoption of Bill C-20, the FNFI will become the First Nations Finance Authority, which was discussed a bit earlier in this debate.
In 1995, a round table of representatives from the Department of Finance and the Assembly of First Nations led to the adoption of a resolution on taxation. The following year, the participants at the annual general meeting of the Assembly of First Nations adopted resolution 5/96 supporting the establishment, between the first nations governments and the Government of Canada, of new fiscal relationships based on the principles of flexibility, equity, choice, the assurance of government services comparable to those provided by other governments, economic incentives and efficiency.
The Chiefs' Committee on Fiscal Relations was created two years later to review fiscal relations between first nation governments and the federal government. That is known as resolution 49/98 of the general assembly. It recommended the establishment of first nations financial institutions. In 1999, the Assembly of First Nations expressed its support for this initiative when participants in its annual general meeting supported the creation of the first nations financial authority, and backed the Indian Taxation Advisory Board's efforts to establish the first nations tax commission. Those are known as resolutions 6/99 and 7/99 respectively.
In December of the same year, the federal government and the Assembly of First Nations signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the creation of a national round table on financial relationships, with the objective of establishing solid bases for these relationships through an exchange of information, capacity building and the establishment of benchmarks.
In 2000—we are getting closer—the Assembly of First Nations maintained its support for the creation of the first nations statistical institute and the first nations financial management board, pursuant to resolutions 5/2000 and 6/2000 of the Confederacy of Indian Nations. The general assembly then passed resolution 24/2001 supporting the recommendation by the chiefs' committee regarding the establishment of the four new first nations financial institutions by federal legislation. The legal validity of this resolution was questioned, however, since some people thought that it had not received the support of 60% of those present required, as we know, under the charter of the Assembly of First Nations.
On August 15, 2002, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released a draft bill with the intent to carry out public consultations before introducing it in the House. Several first nations then raised deep concerns with the way the bill was written. Of course, the Bloc Québécois shared these same concerns.
As a result, the AFN convened a special chiefs assembly in November 2002 and passed a resolution rejecting the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management bill. According to Resolution 30/2002, the proposed legislation violated the historic nation to nation relationship, infringed upon aboriginal and treaty rights, and was otherwise so flawed that it could not be corrected by mere amendments.
An additional so-called accommodation resolution was also passed, that is AFN Resolution 31/2002 respecting the right of those first nations to enter into local and regional agreements, but not in the context of national legislation.
On December 2, 2002, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled Bill C-19 on first nations fiscal and statistical management in the House of Commons. That bill, which died on the Order Paper in November 2003, was reinstated as Bill C-23 on March 10, 2004. That bill also died on the Order Paper after third reading. It was reintroduced very recently, on November 2, 2004, with some significant changes. We are debating this new Bill C-20 today, after studying it for not too long, but, say, carefully in committee.
However, former Bills C-19 and Bill C-23 were unacceptable both to us and to first nations. We had concerns about the fact that the act could work against aboriginal rights and reduce the federal government's fiduciary obligations toward the first nations. We were also concerned that the institutions would only serve a few first nations.
Bill C-23, for example, like the Indian Act, delegated tax authority to first nations communities, which came down to making aboriginal governments municipal entities, if you will, when their legitimate desire was to enjoy greater financial autonomy.
Moreover, the preamble to Bill C-20 uses language that reflects the government's strongly municipal approach to the first nations.
With respect to Bill C-19, we had a number of critical comments. First, the definition of “specific claims” was too narrow. Access to the tribunal was nearly impossible; the $7 million ceiling excluded most claims. Neither the commission nor the tribunal were independent or impartial. The minister had the power to accept or reject claims. Finally, there was doubt about the impartiality and flexibility of the process.
Fortunately, two very important changes have been made in the bill before us today. First, a schedule was added to ensure that the legislation applies to those first nations who wish to participate, because participation is optional, something we feel is very important. Second, a non-derogation clause was included to protect the aboriginal and treaty rights of all first nations.
These changes ensure consistency with the Charter of the Assembly of First Nations as well as the principles of self-determination, the approach taken by the first nations, and the optionality provided for in recent resolutions of the Assembly of First Nations, which were passed in Saskatoon and ratified again in Charlottetown.
This economic disparity exists because some lands do not have services, investors are uncertain and the cost of starting a business is still too high.
A backgrounder produced by the First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiative says that a dollar of first nation tax revenue buys 30% to 50% less in capital works than it does for other governments. The problem lies primarily in the legislative and institutional framework.
For 130 years, the Indian Act has perpetuated this state of affairs, this lack of fairness. It has prevented first nations from creating their own institutions and participating in the economy.
Will Bill C-20 completely correct this situation? No, but we think it is a step in the right direction, as long, of course, as the federal government does not use this bill as a means to opt out of its financial obligations with respect to the first nations. I repeat, the government has a fiduciary obligation to the aboriginal peoples and it cannot opt out of that.
There are so many things to improve in the living conditions of the first nations that they will not be settled by this bill, but only through real political will exercised by the current government.
Housing conditions, education and health are inferior compared to the rest of the population. On the reserves, 65% of families live in substandard housing. The Bloc Québécois is deeply concerned about the fact that the lack of adequate, affordable housing for aboriginals has implications beyond housing standards. We know that various medical and social problems are related to poor housing conditions and quality of life. The Government of Canada must make the necessary efforts to correct the situation without offloading the problems to the first nations.
Bill C-20 will help first nations who so desire to participate significantly in their economy and encourage private investment on their lands, which is more difficult at present. First nations wanting to borrow money to develop their community infrastructure face transaction costs, processing delays and interest rates that are far too high, even prohibitive.
Despite the positive aspects of this bill, we must not lose sight of some of the basic principles it must respect. First, will it protect the first nations' right to self-determination? Will it benefit first nations, particularly those in Quebec? Will it protect the rights of first nations that opt out of the legislation and the obligations toward them? Will it help redress the fiscal imbalance of first nations that take advantage of this legislation? We may not get all the answers today, but we will make sure the minister does not forget these questions.
For the Bloc Québécois, aboriginal independence claims are very important and must be respected. Recently, with Bill C-14, we supported the aboriginal peoples' right to self-government. Bill C-14 was about the Tlicho people. This bill will help those first nations who so desire to access the financial tools they have been lacking and that the other levels of government have been using for a long time.
That is why we are in favour of Bill C-20.
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP to speak to Bill C-20. Nothing is perfect, but we see a lot of improvements in this bill over the one that was introduced in the 37th Parliament, Bill C-23. We had some very serious problems back then and thankfully people have had a chance to take another look. This is a bill that we can live with.
It is important because it does a number of things. It takes a huge step forward in giving autonomous responsibility to the first nations people for their own future. At the end of the day, is that not what all people ask for, frankly around the world, to be the authors of their own destiny? In the modern world, if we do not have control of our finances, we really are limited to how much true control we have over the course in front of us.
I am particularly pleased in terms of the pooling aspect, which is a big part of this. It came from the experience in B.C. with the New Democratic government there working with the municipalities and the provincial government. They pooled all their money so their borrowing needs were also pooled and that meant two things. First, all municipalities had an opportunity to borrow money at one of the best rates available. That will now apply to the first nations people, assuming this bill carries and we certainly hope it does.
Second, it allows smaller communities or municipalities, in the case of the first nations people, to still benefit from what is usually available only to larger urban centres where they have the money and the ability to back up their borrowing needs with sufficient revenue at a very good rate. The lower rate we pay the more tax money can be applied to other important things such as health, education, environment, et cetera.
This part alone will play a significant role in assisting first nations people with a lot of their needed projects. Anyone who has visited any of the first nations reserves will know the challenges that are there. We cannot help but walk away with a heavy heart realizing how much more this country has to do for its first nations people.
This modest step forward is still significant because it will allow them a little more certainty in terms of the future: how they get there and how they are going to pay. The fact that they have smaller numbers will not limit their ability to play the kind of role that they obviously want to play, and that the House wants to see played.
Long after the bill is passed, we are going to be watching to ensure that there is no creeping paternalism in this process at all. This is meant to be an arm's-length autonomous process that allows the first nations people to make their own decisions. That means beginning with appointments to these boards and commissions and agencies, all the way through to the decisions that they make and the implementation of them. They need to be in control. We as a caucus will not stand for any kind of paternalism.
The whole idea is to get away from paternalism. This is very significant to us. It is equal in fact to the money and commissions that are being created, and the ability to charge for property taxes and increase their revenues. They are all important, but if we do not move away determinedly and in a progressive fashion from the overhang of paternalism that still exists, if we are not achieving that with Bill C-20 and every other bill we deal with from here on in, then quite frankly, this House is selling a bill of goods to the first nations people. History would show that they have been sold more than bill of goods.
This needs to work for them. It needs to work for Canada.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member from Hamilton for sharing his time on this very important piece of legislation that we do support. It took the government a couple of kicks at the can to get it right. Now that it has it right, we are able to see this thing through and see the light of day.
My riding of Skeena--Bulkley Valley is in the far northwest corner of British Columbia. There are a number of first nations groups in my riding. As the hon. member mentioned, when I visit the first nations, I am seeing the conditions that we would not accept in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. I am seeing the way that people are living and struggling to survive, both through acquiring education and just the basic human rights, the basic health care needs.
The basic needs that all of us share are not being achieved. We hope that this bill goes some measure forward in allowing first nations to achieve and realize the same successes that many Canadians have realized over the past century.
The Nisga'a people are within my riding. Recently, I had the deep and profound honour of speaking at the memorial service for one of the great Nisga'a members, Rod Robinson, who recently passed away. He was a true giant of a man in the first nations community at the local level, across the province of British Columbia, and across our nation.
He was a man who saw the importance for first nations to be full and inclusive members in Canadian society, to be proud members, and to realize among themselves the importance of self-determination. He saw the importance of rights and title, of what it truly means to have consultation and accommodation, and the role that the federal Government of Canada plays in reaching out to first nations in a true and sincere way. Finally, to defend the honour of the Crown, which was recently spoken to in the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada with the Haida and the Tlingit.
The federal government has this responsibility to defend the honour of the Crown. The record of the federal Government of Canada over the last 150 years has been absolutely deplorable when dealing with first nations.
One has to look no further than some of the communities within my riding and the challenges that they face, the basic challenges of health and hygiene, advancement in education, and a real economy where they can strive ahead and look to the future. We believe this bill does a number of things that will allow first nations to combine their resources and go to the institutions that have the capital that they need to invest properly into their communities.
My hon. colleague mentioned that this came out of the B.C. NDP government. It organized the municipalities to give them greater strength in going to the banking community and allowing them to invest in those projects that they needed to do. It was a good idea and it has been working. It has been proven to work.
I believe that the idea was actually spurned by the Grimean Bank, an experience in the developing world. Small borrowers were able to pool their resources together, in that case to get microcredit loans, to achieve small projects and realize great benefits for their local communities. We know the repayment schedules were excellent and did very well for those communities.
When the Nisga'a agreement was coming to fruition a number of years ago, I was not involved in politics. The member who was currently representing our riding at the time was Reform, then Alliance, and then Conservative. The fearmongering that went on during that debate, and there were 422 amendments or something that came through in the House, was that if this agreement went through, the economy in the northwest of British Columbia would shut down. There was fear spread that first nations would take over and control the resources, mining would shut down, forestry would no longer exist, and that it would all come tumbling down. The federal government was told that it should not be agreeing to this.
We heard similar rhetoric just recently on the Tlicho debate in the House. Frankly, I was embarrassed as a parliamentarian to hear the views expressed by fellow parliamentarians across the House describing the same scenario again. They were saying that first nations will take over, that this is a terrible idea, and that we should not allow them any progress. This is something that the government finally got agreement on from the local communities, from the major industries in the area, and from the Northwest Territories. Some members said that we should not allow this process to go ahead, that this is a bad thing for this country, and supposedly a bad thing for first nations.
The hypocrisy during that debate and the Nisga'a debate was deplorable. One of the reasons that I decided to enter into politics was the idea to represent my riding with such strong first nations' presence: the Haida, the Haisla, the Tlingit, the Tahltan, and the numbers go on. I wanted to come to the House to challenge those that would say that treaties are not good for first nations, that settling out and understanding how first nations are going to finally be included in the economy and the society of Canada in a meaningful way is not a worthy project.
We have constantly been pushing the government to come to the treaty table with first nations with a needed sense of urgency. To this point there is this open-ended feeling that we can go on and on, and that first nations can wait for these treaties to be settled in a meaningful way.
We are encouraged by this particular piece of legislation because it goes some way to push the government to allow first nations to pool their resources collectively. Recently, we received a letter from a financial institution, a credit union in B.C., which is very supportive of this work, ready to go, and already involved in projects of this nature. These are sometimes basic health care projects or economic projects. This is something that we are working collectively with our first nations brothers and sisters to finally get the issue pushed forward.
It was 15 years ago that we passed a resolution in the House to end child poverty in this country. We have been completely unable to do that. The statistics within the country are deplorable with respect to child poverty. It is a shame upon this House. If we move to the case of first nations, the case becomes much worse. Whatever indicator we look at, the first nations situation in Canada today is so much less, so much poorer than all other Canadians. If there is anything that we can do in the House to improve those conditions, both on and off reserve for first nations across the country, then our party will always be in support of it.
In my riding there is a beautiful example of first nations working together. Seven nations came together to work on a totem pole. From all living memory that we could decipher, there had been no instance of these first nations working together collectively on something as important and significant as the raising of a totem pole.
Through much deliberation and in conjunction with a community college with a non-aboriginal board of directors, they were able to come together, work with the communities, and find a place where they could work on this totem pole. Each group had to decide what it was going to bring to the pole. Some weeks ago they raised it together, pulled on the ropes together with the non-aboriginal community in Terrace, B.C. They raised this magnificent and stunning work which represents how first nations can work together with the non-aboriginal community to achieve something beautiful, historic and monumental.
We can apply that same feeling, that same willingness to work together across the nations with the non-aboriginal community and sincere feeling from government, to achieve even greater things, such as justice within our time, and some sense of pride when we look to the first nations communities and know that Canadians are doing well by our first nations brothers and sisters.
Then we can say to our children that we were involved in a process that finally remedied the abuses and the misconduct of the federal government toward first nations people. That will be a very proud day for us. That is a day that we need to all work toward collectively.
There is one more important concern. As we move toward this, some nations have expressed concern that the federal government will be abdicating some of its responsibility toward first nations, that it will be turning it over to the private sector. We will be looking very strongly throughout the implementation of this piece of legislation to ensure that the federal government maintains its importance. The Haida case and the Tlicho case point clearly to the federal government's role. It must be the one that consults with first nations, that works with true and proper accommodation of first nations' rights and title. That is the role of the federal government. That is the role that we must maintain.
While this is innovative, progressive, and born out of the provincial New Democrats, a place where many progressive, new and innovative things have come, we support it. The federal government must maintain its place at the table and must increase its sense of urgency to finally and completely settle first nations claims.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the second time.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, which is an act to regulate and prohibit certain activities related to food and other products to which the acts under the administration of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency apply, and to provide for the administration and enforcement of those acts and to amend other acts in consequence. The short title of the bill is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act.
The intent of this proposed legislation is to consolidate, modernize and enhance the inspection and enforcement powers of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The bill seeks to provide the CFIA with the basic inspection and enforcement tools that it needs to continue protecting Canada's food supply and animal and plant resource base. It is intended to allow CFIA inspectors to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently and to provide Canada with modern border enforcement tools that will be more consistent with recent American legislation.
Bill C-27 consolidates inspection and enforcement provisions from the eight acts that form the current legislative base for the CFIA. Those eight acts are: the Canada Agriculture Products Act; the Fish Inspection Act; the Meat Inspection Act; the Seeds Act; the Feeds Act; the Fertilizers Act; the Health of Animals Act; and the Plant Protection Act. These acts were introduced by different departments over the course of many years. Some date back as far as the 1940s and 1950s. These acts have been around for a long time, and the department thought it would try to integrate, consolidate and modernize the food inspection legislation.
Government responsibility for food in Canada is divided among the federal, 10 provincial, three territorial and numerous municipal governments. Some 77 pieces of legislation govern Canada's food inspection among the three levels of government.
Federal responsibility centres on export and interprovincial trade, protecting and expanding export markets for Canadian food products and facilitating interprovincial trade. In addition, the federal government sets food safety, quality and grading standards for products sold interprovincially and internationally. It administers regulations aimed at preventing the production or sale in Canada of dangerous, adulterated or misbranded products.
Provinces and municipalities are responsible for the intra-provincial aspects of the food industry, including local food processing, the food service industry and the food retail industry. They decide whether and how to inspect local operations, including restaurants and grocery stores, as well as dairies and meat plants whose products are sold within the province.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the result of the amalgamation in 1997 of food safety and inspection programs from three federal departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The establishment of a single agency followed a long history of discussions about the benefits of consolidating the federal food inspection system.
Following are some of the reasons for creating the CFIA. Industry and government favoured harmonized standards and streamlined inspection to ensure the competitiveness of the Canadian food industry domestically, as well as internationally. Canadian producers and processors were vulnerable to trade challenges in a fragmented system. Closer integration of the U.S. and Canadian markets under free trade agreements made the industry anxious to reduce the costs and inefficiencies resulting from differing provincial standards. Canadian exporters were concerned about being denied access to external markets on the grounds that Canadian food safety standards and inspection systems were not equivalent to those of the markets into which they were shipping.
The agency's main activities focus on inspecting the food supply, but it also conducts activities related to animal health and plant protection. The agency is responsible for delivering federal inspection programs that enforce these policies and standards. Bill C-27 is basically a housekeeping bill, but that does not mean it is without fault. It has flaws.
My main concern is that the bill does not incorporate any aspect of accountability for fair and effective enforcement on the part of the CFIA.
Food inspection is absolutely essential to Canadians. We want to have faith in the food we eat.
Large quantities of foodstuffs, for example, rice or some indigenous foods, are imported into Canada by Canadian firms from China, India and many other countries. Many of the foods are from different communities in their country of origin.
Some of these foods are accepted into the United States but normally they are not accepted into Canada. The criteria used in decisions often appear to be arbitrary and unfair. The importers or business people are catering to a huge multicultural market in Canada and are unable to import foods which are easily imported into the United States of America, our neighbour and largest trading partner. We need to look into that aspect.
The root cause is the regulatory process. Since my election to this chamber in 1997, I have taken a particular interest in regulatory reform and in reducing red tape. I have been the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and have succeeded in passing a private member's bill, of course with the cooperation of all members in the House.
That bill provides parliamentarians with an opportunity to disallow any federal statutory instruments that are illegal, redundant or that are not supposed to be there, even ones that originate from government agencies like the CFIA which we are talking about today. I also organized a conference on regulatory reform and have authored numerous op-eds on the issue.
Let me talk about Bill C-205 which was one of, I think, 1,700 bills that have been introduced in the House since I was elected. I was lucky to have the cooperation of some members from the opposite side as well.
Prior to the passage of my bill, Parliament was powerless to revoke hundreds of regulations written by government agencies like the CFIA, the CRTC and many other agencies. In other words, the quasi-government organizations or agencies have been delegated the power to make regulations. When Parliament delegated the power to them to make the regulations, parliamentarians did not have the power to review, scrutinize or disallow the regulations which many times contradicted the original intent of the legislation.
There was a big black hole in the accountability for many years before the passage of this most important private member's bill. As a result of the passage of that bill, all the regulations that are made in Canada by different agencies now come under the purview of Parliament. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations has demanded to review and scrutinize some of those.
I am therefore interested to see that Bill C-27 seeks to support the government's so-called smart regulation strategy by providing more consistent inspection and enforcement powers; providing a wider range of regulatory instruments; simplifying and streamlining the regulatory process; and contributing to the increased harmonization of legislation and regulations, to reduce overlap. Sometimes regulations are not consistent with those of our largest trading partner. The bill seeks to contribute to the regulatory cooperation with the United States, our largest trading partner.
This bill is long overdue. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created in 1997 to combine all federal food inspection, animal, plant and health services into a single inspection agency. The legislative basis for the agency should have been updated at that time or shortly thereafter, not after seven years.
Even though the government has had more than ample time to prepare the legislation, it is still not without flaws. Therefore, I am concerned that the bill does not incorporate any aspect of accountability for fair and effective enforcement. It fails to address accountability for frivolous or false detainment and destruction of products and materials. Without such accountability, I will not be able to support the bill. I look forward to meaningful amendments to the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
First Nations, Métis and Inuit War VeteransJeremy Harrison: moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should acknowledge the historic inequality of treatment and compensation for First Nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans and take action immediately to give real compensation to these veterans in a way that truly respects their service and sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure and honour to speak to Motion No. 193. This is the first private member's motion that I have had the opportunity to present in the House. As such, I have chosen to put forward an issue for debate that is very important to both me and my constituents.
My riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is geographically one of the largest in the country, covering the northern half of my province of Saskatchewan. It accounts for 58% of the land mass of the province. It is an area larger than the country of Germany and nearly the size of France.
Existing in my massive and remote riding are over 30 first nations and 108 individual Indian reserves, the most of any riding in the country. My riding is made up of over 50% of people of aboriginal ancestry. Representing them is a responsibility I take seriously.
I believe it is an indisputable fact that aboriginal veterans were not treated fairly or equitably upon their return from serving their country during World War I, World War II and the Korean War. When these soldiers were overseas they were treated the same. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal trained together, fought together and, in too many cases, died together.
They say that there are no atheists in foxholes. During Canada's wars, among the soldiers at least, there were no skin colours in combat. These men served shoulder to shoulder and spent the most harrowing moments of their lives relying on each other for their survival. Often these men would serve together for years on end, seeing more of each other than they did of their own families, becoming truly bands of brothers.
These soldiers served heroically and with great distinction, winning battles from Vimy to Juno Beach to Ortona. Many aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike lie buried together in war cemeteries across Europe and in the countries in which they gave their lives to free from tyranny and oppression.
Why were these brave soldiers treated differently when they returned to Canada? There have been many different explanations offered, but it basically comes back to the same thing: systemic and deep rooted discrimination within the institutions of the Government of Canada.
Like their comrades in arms, first nations veterans looked forward to re-establishing themselves back home with the generous benefits of the Veterans Charter provided by a grateful nation.
In theory, first nations veterans were eligible for and entitled to exactly the same benefits as any other returning servicemen, with the exception of the Veterans Land Act special provisions for settlement on Indian reserve land. In practice, however, a number of systemic factors inhibited the ability of first nations veterans to obtain adequate, timely and accurate information, as well as unbiased counselling, about the complex array of benefits for which they might apply.
In addition, these veterans faced bureaucratic delays and complications which, when combined with the differential economies of scale found in the benefits of the Veterans Land Act, meant first nations veterans faced a steeper uphill struggle for post-war re-establishment than other veterans.
At this point I would like to go through some of the specifics regarding the lack of equal treatment faced by first nations veterans. I will start with the Veterans Land Act and move on to the lack of access to an administration of veterans benefits for first nations veterans, then discuss problems with dependents allowances and assigned pay.
I would like to note as well that much of the initial research on these topics was done by Dr. R. Scott Sheffield and laid out in a major report conducted for the national round table on first nations veterans issues back in April 2001.
The Veterans Land Act was one of the primary re-establishment options, enabling qualified veterans to settle on a piece of land and take up agriculture, either as a full time occupation or as an income supplement on a smallholding hobby farm. Originally the act provided loans of $4,800, of which $1,200 was for the purchase of equipment, at a low interest rate of 3.5%. However, by war's end the maximum had been expanded to $6,000, all of which could be used to acquire land. If the loan was repaid on schedule and in full, the government was prepared to forgive the last $2,320 of the $6,000.
First nations veterans were eligible in theory to apply under the VLA off reserve and be considered on the same basis as other veterans. Realistically, however, there were obstacles that made such an event unlikely, something that was acknowledged by the Veterans Affairs Department in a notice from the director in 1945. It stated:

The average Indian veteran may be confronted with a practical difficulty in seeking qualification papers from the responsible committees set up for the purpose, who may be expected to feel some diffidence about qualifying an Indian for establishment on the land on a debt basis. In other words it is feared that few Indians could qualify under the conditions set by the Act.

The first nations veterans lack of a credit rating, combined with discriminatory stereotypes among the wider population, probably would have blocked many from obtaining VLA grants off reserve. The dubious opportunities for first nations veterans to settle outside reserves clearly would not have helped many first nations soldiers who would have undoubtedly gone back to their reserve communities.
However, under the existing VLA, legal hurdles remained that barred the act's extension to reserve lands.
First, since title to reserve land was held by the crown for the use and benefit of the band for which it was set apart, the VLA director was prohibited from holding title to it as required under the act. Second, the individual land allotment was not legally equivalent to a veteran owning a piece of land off reserve in fee simple.
An amendment to the VLA was passed in 1945 to get around these legal obstructions, which created section 35A. Under this section, a grant of up to $2,320 could be provided to qualified veterans on reserve. A first nations veteran required a location ticket to a specific tract of reserve land and a band resolution to confirm his ownership of the land to quality. Though the $2,320 was not equivalent to the $6,000, the Indian affairs branch argued that this deficiency was balanced somewhat by “the more favourable conditions that existed on reserve”.
First nations veterans were understandably angered at being barred from the loan provisions of the VLA and skeptical about the so-called advantages of reserve conditions, particularly as it involved having the Indian affairs branch and their Indian agents directly handling their cases.
According to government records, more than 4,000 veterans settled off reserve on crown lands with the help of the same level of assistance as on reserve farmers, with a maximum $2,320 conditional grant as compared to the $6,000 for non-aboriginal veterans.
A number of factors worked against first nations veterans who attempted to re-establish themselves under the VLA. With regard to those who wanted to undertake farming on a full time basis, the immediate challenges they faced had to do with economies of scale. For several reasons, the average size of farm that first nations veterans could secure was substantially smaller than could be obtained off reserve. As an example, we can look at Alberta where many veterans, first nations and otherwise, pursued full time agriculture under the VLA.
Grain farms totalling a full section of 640 acres of land would not have been considered out of the norm in the immediate post-war period. There is no evidence available of a first nations reserve farmer receiving a land allotment for more than a quarter section, or 160 acres, and some were closer to half that size.
What is more, the limited land base on many reserves proved a serious obstacle for expanding their operations. The government recognized that VLA farmers required access to more capital if they were to continue expanding their operations, and in 1954 passed an amendment to the act providing farm improvement loans. Sadly, these loans were inaccessible to first nations veterans because of the fact that they were loans. The result was that many first nations farmers were never able to build prosperous agricultural operations.
The second area of inequality was with regard to access to and administration of veterans benefits for first nations veterans.
First nations servicemen were generally told to return to the reserve and see their Indian agents about benefits as opposed to non-aboriginal veterans who fell under the jurisdiction of the veterans affairs department. From this point forward, first nations veterans received differential treatment from the norm.
Upon return to Canada, after their service was complete, non-aboriginal veterans were entitled to apply for either a re-establishment credit, which was equal in value to the basic war service gratuity, or instead a choice for agricultural re-establishment, that is the Veterans Land Act, which I have discussed, and education and training opportunities.
Overall first nations veterans faced systematic disadvantages, not faced by most other veterans, in obtaining information, counselling and applications for all the options that were open to them. In addition, the Indian affairs branch and the Indian Act added an extra layer of bureaucracy and regulations between first nations veterans and their re-establishment. The resulting delays and complications created hardship for some veterans and frustration for many more.
One example of the systematic problems faced by first nations veterans should be pointed out in detail, namely, the fact that much of the information that was disseminated on the benefits available to veterans through the Veterans Charter was distributed through posters and pamphlets in legion halls and advertisements on radio and in the newspaper.
This was particularly problematic for first nations veterans as the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act prohibited first nations veterans from entering legion halls as these establishments served alcohol. As for radios, at that time very few existed on post-war Indian reserves and the high rates of illiteracy meant that newspapers were of little use either, assuming a reserve community even received them. In many cases this left a first nations veteran with only the Indian agent as a source of information and advice about veterans benefits.
For a number of reasons, this dependence on the Indian agent and Indian affairs to supply accurate details of programs and unbiased advice in a timely and efficient fashion proved unfortunate, to put it mildly. There is evidence that many Indian agents did not fully understand the complex array of programs available under the Veterans Charter, and also that the Indian affairs bureaucracy was incapable of even disseminating all the information to the Indian agents. Even assuming that the Indian agents were knowledgeable, there is evidence that many did not tell first nations veterans under their jurisdiction of all available options, but rather what the agent thought they should receive.
The third area of unequal treatment for first nations veterans is with regard to the dependents' allowances and assigned pay. The clearest case of discrimination came in the Dependents' Allowance Board's unilateral decision to reduce allowances to first nations dependants residing on a reserve unless under the direct administration of the Indian agent. Beyond this, the initial separate system established for administering first nations dependants, which simply placed the cheques in the hands of the Indian agents with few guidelines and no accounting procedures, created a lot of opportunities for mismanagement, abuse of power and fraud.
Even when stricter measures were put in place to keep track of the money due to first nations dependants, some Indian agents were still circumventing the process. It is difficult to determine exactly how much money that first nations dependants lost out upon, but it is clear that funds due to these people were never received.
Clearly, without any doubt, first nations veterans were not treated equally with their non-aboriginal comrades in arms.
The situation regarding Métis veterans is somewhat less clear, largely owing to inadequate records kept by both the defence department as well as by the veterans affairs department. Veterans Affairs claims to have identified the records of 174 Métis veterans, even though individual soldiers were not allowed to identify as Métis when they signed up for service.
The National Métis Veterans Association states that there are approximately 2,000 Métis veterans who fought in World War II and in Korea, and refutes the department's claim that these veterans have been sufficiently identified and compensated.
At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Métis Nation Veterans Affairs official, David Chartrand, spoke of how Métis people were working to identify and record living Métis veterans from the second world war and Korea. Mr. Chartrand made clear that the 174 figure quoted by the department was far too low.
It is clear that when many Métis veterans returned from the war, they faced many of the same hurdles and problems faced by first nations veterans. Most returned to their remote home communities, many in my riding, where information on programs and benefits available was non-existent. Many of these veterans returned to their traditional occupations of trapping, fishing and hunting, and lived on remote traplines deep in the wilderness of norther Saskatchewan and northern Alberta.
According to the National Métis Veterans Association, less than 3% of the identified Métis veterans received one of the three key programs of the Veterans charter: land, education or the re-establishment grants.
Many people have asked me why I chose to bring this motion forward, the first piece of private member's business I have had the opportunity to present before the House. The answer is that the way aboriginal veterans were treated by this country when they returned is one of the great historical injustices of our time. The fact is that we do not have much time left to make this injustice right. There are only 2,000 first nations veterans left, and an even small number of Métis veterans left. This motion calls for compensation for these veterans because they are owed it as a simple matter of equality, but to be honest, the veterans with whom I have spoken do not even care about the money. What they desire is an acknowledgement that they were treated unfairly, and a thank you from this country, a country they fought and died for. They are asking for recognition and for their dignity, something we owe them in spades.
Some will say that compensating these veterans fairly will cost too much. To that I say that if anybody in this country deserves compensation from the government, it is those who fought to defend our freedom. If the government can find seemingly limitless money for gun registries and sponsorship programs, surely it can find some funding to compensate 3,000 to 4,000 men who put their lives on the line to defend our values and future.
Some will also argue that first nations veterans have already been compensated and will refer to the $20,000 payout to first nations veterans in the aftermath of the national round table on first nations veterans issues. To that I will say that a take it or leave it offer by the government for a sum that was literally picked out of thin air is hardly sufficient compensation. How much is enough? That should be determined in consultation with veterans groups.
It is interesting to note that of the 2,000 first nations veterans identified for compensation in 2002, only 1,100 have ever received a dime. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the impression that the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Indian Affairs that I get is that they are simply trying to play for time and run out the clock. They know as well as anybody that time is not on the veterans' side and that soon there will be no veterans left to compensate. This was certainly the impression I got when department officials testified before the aboriginal affairs committee earlier this year.
I will conclude with the words of Mr. Edgar Borchert, a World War II veteran and president of the National Métis Veterans Association, who testified before the aboriginal affairs committee on November 4, 2004.
Mr. Borchert said:

What do the Métis veterans desire? They want the recognition that they served Canada honourably. They want equitable treatment. For their contribution to Canada and its war effort, they want no less than the first nations, the wood cutters, the newspaper journalists, and other veterans groups. The Métis veterans are very proud warriors, and their struggle will not be diminished to being nothing more than beggars at a government table. But I beg for them. I beg for your compassion to allow our veterans to live out their last few years with dignity and that their widows have your support and that they have truly the honour of being called Canada's warriors.

Jim Prentice: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the other members of the House and as a Canadian, I would like to thank the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for the leadership that he has taken on this initiative.
As the aboriginal affairs critic for our party, I speak in support of the motion. I have been around these sorts of issues for many years. I served as a commissioner of the Indian Claims Commission of Canada for 10 years, and for 8 or 9 of those years as a co-chair. I must say how proud I am of the hon. member, as I have watched him do his work as a member of the House and watched his attempt to advance claims for fairness and justice for aboriginal people. He has been a great advocate at committee and has been a great advocate in the House. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for the fine work that he has been doing on behalf of aboriginal Canadians and the people of his constituency, and I thank him.
The motion is one that involves acknowledgement, recognition and dignity to a group of men and women who have served this country with distinction and who when they returned from military service found that they were not treated in the same way. In particular, I was struck by the testimony which I read of members of the military, veterans who said that while they were in service as aboriginal Canadians, it was the first time in their lives that they were treated in a way that measured up in terms of respect and equality. They were treated wonderfully as members of the Canadian service. The problems began when they returned to Canada and found themselves again under the thumb of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The stories that we heard at committee with respect to the treatment of those people would not make any Canadian proud.
The question I have for the hon. member concerns how this matter came before the House. It was before the committee at an earlier time. What has brought this motion before the House? Why is it here? Could he explain that to Canadians?
Jeremy Harrison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North has been a tremendous advocate for first nations people and has done an outstanding job as the critic for aboriginal affairs and northern development for the Conservative Party. He brings a great deal of compassion and an incredible amount of knowledge to the table on these issues. He has done a fantastic job and I say that with all sincerity.
I want to explain how this particular motion came before the House. After hearing incredibly moving testimony at the aboriginal affairs committee about the differential treatment of aboriginal veterans, the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North put forward a motion at the end of one of those meetings calling on the government to recognize the inappropriate treatment of aboriginal veterans and to thank them for their service. The motion was supported by both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, to their great credit.
Unfortunately, the government, for whatever reason, was not in support of the motion. The Liberals delayed and refused to allow the motion, a very simple motion recognizing what are facts and thanking these veterans for their service and thanking them on behalf of Canada, to come to a vote.
The Liberals put on this show in front of distinguished veterans and representatives of veterans groups from across the country. I must say that I was truly offended at what happened in committee on that day.
For that reason I thought if this could not be dealt with in committee then it had to be something that the entire House had deal with. If the Liberals wanted to put on a show in front of Canadians and make a mockery of the sacrifice of the service provided by these veterans, then they could do that in the House of Commons in front of Canadians so they could see how they act.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the motion this afternoon.
I commend the member for his efforts in keeping this issue alive but, unfortunately, I think many of the things that he has put forward in the motion are somewhat misguided and not always reliant entirely on the facts in terms of what the government has been doing in this regard.
The history of first nations, Métis and Inuit military service is quite remarkable and, when called, of course Canada's aboriginal veterans answered the call by the thousands. They served nobly in all three major wars of the last century.
The first world war, with its trench warfare, its poison gas and its machine guns, destroyed virtually a full generation of young Canadian men. Among them were at least 300 aboriginal Canadian soldiers.
Over four years, aboriginal Canadian soldiers participated and earned medals for valour in practically every major land battle.
More than 200 native Canadian soldiers were killed or died from their wounds during the second world war. Natives earned a minimum of 18 decorations for bravery in action. They participated in every major battle and campaign, including the disastrous Dieppe landings and the pivotal Normandy invasion.
They also served in one of the worst imaginable theatres, Hong Kong, where just under 2,000 members of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada became prisoners of war of the Japanese. Included among them were at least 16 Indians and Métis, nine of whom died from wounds or illness.
Korea would see our aboriginal veterans answer the call to service as well.
It is for such service that all Canadians want to see that aboriginal veterans are treated with fairness and justice. If and where there has been elements of unfairness over time, we want to take steps to correct that unfairness. The government believes it has done just that.
In February 2000, some federal ministers invited the aboriginal veterans to come and discuss the treatment they received during and after the wars.
The National Round Table on First Nations Veterans Issues was created with the first nations veterans. Discussions took place with the National Métis Veterans Association on the subject of Métis veterans, and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association agreed to take part in a research project on the fate of non-status Indian veterans after the wars.
The grievances of aboriginal veterans relating to their treatment during and after the wars are very complex and have been examined and discussed many times in various fora over the recent past. The member opposite knows this full well.
At each discussion, the complexities become even more apparent. They are difficult matters to grasp, partially because they invariably require an understanding of issues that originated decades ago. A reading of history decades later can give rise to all sorts of legitimate misunderstandings and misinterpretations. In that reading, we are faced with different perspectives of different parties, which makes it difficult to respond in a manner that satisfies everyone.
In order to look at these issues in their context, we should examine the history of veterans' benefits offered to all who served in wartime. Here they are, in broad terms.
Every veteran who was honourably discharged was eligible for a war service allowance and a clothing allowance. In addition, if they met the eligibility criteria, veterans could choose one of the following options: first, a re-establishment credit , second, educational assistance, including retraining allowances, or third, assistance under the Veterans Land Act.
I am going to leave it to my colleagues to speak to some of the more substantial detail about how the application of these demobilization benefits played out over time.
There is no denying that for decades aboriginal veterans, that is to say first nations, Métis, non-status and Inuit, have felt that they were not treated fairly by the Government of Canada after the wars.
As I mentioned earlier, to better understand and respond to the concerns of first nations veterans, the federal government established a national round table in February 2000. Provisions were made for first nations veterans to research how various departments dealt with their requests for demobilization benefits after the wars, including, of course, Veterans Affairs Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs.
The round table also focused on collecting oral testimonies from first nations veterans, identifying acts, policies and programs available to veterans and to their spouses during and after the wars and of course gathering data on the names of first nations veterans.
There is no doubt from file reviews, research and discussions of the round table that first nations veterans received the demobilization benefits to which they were entitled after the wars. However, those who chose to return to their reserve communities after the wars had to deal with an extra layer of bureaucracy in order to receive their demobilization benefits. Veterans Affairs Canada provided the benefits for first nations veterans on reserve to their Indian agents, who in turn were to provide the benefits to the veterans.
In response to the report presented by the national round table, on June 21, 2002, the Government of Canada announced that it would provide $20,000 to each living first nations veteran who returned to a reserve after the wars or their living spouse.
Hon. members might recall that when the previous minister of veterans affairs made the announcement in the House, members of all political parties applauded the announcement. This tax free amount of $20,000 was, after all, consistent with other lump sum packages offered to other veterans' groups by the Government of Canada.
Veterans Affairs Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have worked with the national round table working group in order to get the message out about the federal offer to the various first nations communities. Although the original application date closed on February 15, 2003, late applications have still been accepted. To date, 1,195 ex gratia payments have indeed been made.
The situation of Métis and non-status Indian veterans is not the same as that of first nations veterans who returned to the reserves, because they did not have to deal with a third party. Furthermore, access to assistance provided under the Veterans' Land Act had not been complicated by issues of inalienable reserves located on Crown land.
The federal government nonetheless established a separate process to deal with these concerns.
Substantial funding was provided to the National Métis Veterans Association and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to deal with issues concerning Métis and non-status Indian veterans respectively. It was used to pursue fact-finding discussions to investigate what happened to these veterans after the wars, to compile listings of Métis and non-status Indian veterans, and to collaborate with government in researching their post-war experiences.
Evidence to date indicates that these veterans opted for and received the same demobilization benefits as other veterans. Should aboriginal veterans feel that they did not receive demobilization benefits they were entitled to after the wars, they should contact the department and their files will be reviewed on an individual basis.
Since the wording of Motion M-193 suggests that first nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans are in the same situation when it comes to compensation for veterans, it is appropriate to provide some information.
The offer of ex-gratia payments provided to first nations veterans was based in part on the fact that many of them who returned to the reserves after the wars were unable to deal directly with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Furthermore, the round table found that because of the extra layer of bureaucracy, the veterans did not receive all the benefits to which they were entitled.
This was not the case for Métis and other aboriginal veterans. Veterans Affairs Canada has precise records of the demobilization benefits paid directly to these veterans. Extensive file reviews have shown that the benefits paid to these veterans were the same as the benefits paid to non-aboriginal veterans. Of course, Veterans Affairs Canada will be pleased to review the files of any aboriginal veterans who feel they did not receive the benefits that were their due.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to recognize the initiative of the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, who introduced Motion M-193 in the House. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should acknowledge the historic inequality of treatment and compensation for First Nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans and take action immediately to give real compensation to these veterans in a way that truly respects their service and sacrifice.

In all fairness, we must also recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, who initiated this motion in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources on November 4. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the Bloc Québécois' aboriginal affairs critic, and I also supported this motion on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. This motion was finally introduced in committee by the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North. I also recognize his efforts in this cause.
I confirm completely the claims of the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River when he related what happened in the committee in front of the first nations and Métis veterans. At the end of the committee meeting, in front of these people, the Liberals started to hesitate and to not want to recognize everything these veterans had done for us in wartime. It was a bit of a disgrace and we strongly condemn their attitude.
That is why I am recognizing today the initiative of the member, who agreed to introduce such a motion to right, so to speak, this wrong. I hope that, this time, the Liberals will listen to reason.
At that committee meeting, we had heard from the following witnesses: David Chartrand, of the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Métis National Council, and Edgar Borchert, president of the National Métis Veterans Association. I said then that it was thanks to people like them, veterans who had fought for our freedom and our democracy, that we are able to lead the lives we are living today.
We know that approximately 3,000 members of our first nations fought for Canada during the second world war, and that several hundred fought in Korea. Unfortunately, approximately 500 of them lost their lives. Other historical facts have been confirmed. First nations veterans did not receive the same compensation as other veterans. This is called discrimination. Those who were compensated were excluded from programs the other veterans were entitled to, such as spousal support, training, or even employment assistance. The Métis were treated even worse: they got nothing at all.
In 2000, as hon. members know, the federal committee recommended that each aboriginal who fought for the country receive $120,000 in compensation. However, that amount was awarded to Hong Kong and merchant navy veterans. It is not that they did not deserve the compensation, far from it, but we do not understand why the recommendation was not applied to aboriginals.
Two years later, as we all know, $20,000 in compensation was given by the federal government, and this is totally inadequate. It does not in any way correct the injustice that was created at the time.
In our opinion, Canada violated the international covenant on civil and political rights. This is continued discrimination. I said in committee, and I am saying it again today in this House.
I also remember what Mr. Borchert replied, when I put my question to him. He said:

My veterans have not sat down and put a dollar-and-cents figure to what they feel they're owed, because they are not looking for a get-rich scheme. They are simply looking at a government that has marginalized them since Canada began. But we have been there at every battle—Seven Oaks, Nile Voyageurs, the Fenian raids. We have always been there with Canada.

He continued his testimony by saying that he would like “to see the government at least say thank you”.
Métis war veterans suffered many humiliations. Some of them had difficulty getting basic medication, necessities such as hearing aids, and some of them were even denied a military funeral. The Métis, first nations or Inuit war veterans were left to fend for themselves by the federal government.
As evidence of this, I can mention the $20,000 per person agreement that the Liberal member who spoke before me praised. Hon. members will agree that this is a totally inadequate agreement that was proposed after years of negotiations, and following threats of legal proceedings on the part of the aboriginals who fought during World War II and the Korean war.
Worse still, Métis soldiers of European and aboriginal descent, and non-status Indians living off reserve were excluded from the agreement. Members opposite do not boast about this. The war veterans who accepted the agreement had to waive their right to initiate proceedings against the government. Being now close to 80 years of age, several of them, needless to say, accepted the offer, rather than continue to fight for justice.
I remind the House that, in 2000, a committee appointed by the federal government recommended that compensation of $120,000 be provided to each of the aboriginal veterans. At the time, just under 2,000 people—that is 1,800 in total, 800 veterans and 1,000 spouses— were entitled to this compensation from Ottawa, which represented just under $40 million for the federal government. The motion is aimed at correcting this injustice.
Certain historical facts deserve to be mentioned. After the second world war, veterans, identified as Indian veterans, were penalized in the administration of section 39(1) of the Veterans Land Act, titled Indian Veterans. An application for assistance under the Veterans Land Act contained a number of provisions which did not apply to veterans of non-Indian status.
For example, section 39(2) stated:

An Indian veteran shall submit reasonable evidence that he is personally fit and able to carry on the occupation by which he proposes to gain his livelihood and that by reason of his character, habits, knowledge and experience, he is capable of carrying on that occupation successfully.

The families of first nations soldiers received the same allowance that non-aboriginal soldiers did; however, in 1941-42, certain allowances were placed under the control of the local Indian agent. From then on, the first nations soldiers and their dependents had to invest in Indian trust funds if they wanted to maximize their benefits.
First nations Canadians actively contributed to the national war effort by working in factories and by increasing agricultural production on their reserves. Furthermore, they handed over their reserves, so the land could be used for airports, firing ranges and defence posts.
The contribution of first nations women to the war effort deserves special attention. They cared for sick and wounded soldiers and took part in patriotic leagues as well as Red Cross societies. They also collected food, money and clothing for overseas expeditions.
Some first nations Canadians enrolled in the United States army during both world wars because the Americans offered better wages and there was less discrimination. First nations Canadians who joined American units and moved to the United States were eligible to receive the U.S. war veterans allowance. However, it must be said that the United States did not have special provisions for so-called “treaty Indians”.
Industrialization and urbanization, the opening of remote areas, and better communication in the post second world war era did not benefit aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal soldiers earned a minimum of 17 decorations for bravery during the second world war, participating in every major battle and campaign, including the Dieppe landings and the Normandy invasion. There were also at least 16 Indians and Métis in the Hong Kong force; nine died from wounds or illness as prisoners of war.
During both world wars, enlistment of aboriginals was encouraged by the government, and the response was far greater than their pre-war treatment merited. There was enduring patriotism among aboriginal veterans and their families, in spite of wartime sacrifices. Most viewed their war service with pride, although there was some bitterness and anger lingering from neglect in their history.
Aboriginal Canadians, strongly encouraged to enlist, paid a significant toll in killed, wounded and sick. In contrast to their countrymen, who made political and economic gains, the situation of many Aboriginals remained the same. Their sacrifice achieved very little for them politically, economically or socially in post-war years.
As indicated thus far, the Government of Canada failed almost entirely in establishing legislation or regulations and procedures which took into account the special circumstances of aboriginal veterans. Using the re-establishment credit available to other veterans as a basis, it should be both feasible and appropriate for the Government of Canada to establish a figure for compensation based on the amounts available as War Service Grants Act or Re-establishment Credits, but recalculated in regard to a formula for investment yield based on a term extending from 1945 to 2002.
The first nations veterans package compensated a number of veterans but not all, and not always fairly and equitably. This was obvious from the remarks of my hon. colleagues from the Conservative Party.
Aboriginal, Métis and Inuit veterans want the federal government to recognize that they served their country honourably in major conflicts. They demand equitable treatment. The Bloc Québécois supports them wholeheartedly, and this Parliament could do the same by voting in favour of Motion M-193.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member across the floor for his diligence in promoting this issue. I have a large first nations population in my community, and to be perfectly frank, I was not necessarily aware of this issue and how important it was to the first nations community or that the compensation offered by the government is in fact somewhat of an insult.
First, the compensation is coming so late, so long after the debate, that our treatment and fairness of veterans in general has been absolutely deplorable in the country. I think we stand to learn something from the first nations community on this particular issue of the treatment of our veterans.
Within the first nations that I work with, the veterans of wars, the warriors, the people who have defended the community, are treated with the highest regard. They are considered the most important in society next to the matriarchs, for in that defence of community they have allowed the community and culture to continue.
Let us contrast that with how our federal government has treated veterans: as an afterthought. We cannot even pull together a full standing committee on the issue because we just do not consider it an issue or of relevance. In learning from the first nations community in respect to how they treat their warriors, their veterans, the government could come a long way in understanding what it is to sacrifice for one's country.
Young people in Canada have lost the memory of that sacrifice. A cynical person would say that the government's lack of urgency and failure to be forthcoming on veterans affairs means that it is simply waiting for veterans to no longer be with us. A cynical person would say that, but I am not at that point yet.
The government is looking for congratulations on this $20,000 in compensation. The government members would like us to pat them on the back and say what a wonderful job they have done.
It reminds me of the hepatitis C debate. It is very similar. Now that the government has finally been forced to address the issue, it is looking for accolades on its ability to compensate victims when it knew from the beginning that this should have been done.
Similarly, this is the case with first nations veterans, who with all good intentions went to war on behalf of this country, defended it with life and limb and came back to this country without recognition and without compensation. They had to wait not months or years but decades in order to finally be considered full and active members of the veterans' community.
It is also in contrast to how the veterans themselves have included first nations within their communities. When I go to the Legion halls, I see that veterans are considered on a par with and of the same class as any non-aboriginals who participated in the war. That is the excellent status and class of the veterans' community, which neither this government nor governments prior have exemplified.
Underlying this issue is respect for the Métis nation within our country, but the government seems very reluctant to give any acknowledgement of or full recognition to the Métis because it is worried about where that road will lead in recognizing aboriginal rights and title. The Métis remain a second class. They remain an “other” in society. They are not brought completely to the table and are always given second, third or fourth consideration after the first nations with full rights and title. If the government ever were to acknowledge this, what horrors would be upon us: to actually consider compensation and accommodation for the Métis nations that exist within our country.
There is strong support for this group. A particular sign is the young people within the Métis nation who are now coming forward, speaking strongly on behalf of their rights and looking for recognition in our Constitution and our government.
If the government is looking for congratulations on its rather slow and insulting process, it is not going to get it from this side of the House, particularly not from this corner of the House. It is absolutely deplorable that anyone on the government side can stand in this House and say that the government has done right by first nations.
Nor has it done right by veterans. These people who gave so much to allow this very structure and concept of democracy to exist are the same people we slap in the face and give late and poor recourse to when the time comes.
The hon. member from across the floor said it well when he mentioned that veterans are not the types to come forward cap in hand looking for proper compensation; I think the expression he used was “looking to get rich quick”. These are men and women of pride who consider their work for the country to have been done with pride, and they have been insulted for not months, not years, but decades.
The NDP stands in support of this motion. We congratulate the member again for his persistence in this matter. We look forward to quick passage of the motion.
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in debate on this motion. A little earlier my colleague from this side of the House spoke mainly of the history of veteran benefits available to first nation veterans, specifically status of Indians living on the reserves after the war years.
Since this motion speaks to other aboriginal veterans, such as the Métis and the Inuit war veterans, I will speak more directly to their situation. The short story is that Métis and non-status Indian veterans were not affected by the same administrative realities that are applied to first nations veterans who settled on reserves after the wars. Research conducted to date has not substantiated allegations of any differential treatment of Métis and non-status Indian veterans from that of non-aboriginal veterans.
That said, I am fully aware there remains deeply held views by Métis veterans that they too were treated unfairly upon their return from the wars.
In 2000, two separate processes were initiated with the National Métis Veterans Association and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to represent Métis and non-status Indian veterans respectively, to explore these issues with the federal government. The federal government funded these processes and participated along with Veterans Affairs Canada.
Funding was specifically provided for the National Métis Veterans Association to strengthen the capacity of its organization to “pursue compensation” for Métis veterans.
In order to determine what benefits Métis veterans received after the wars and under the current programs, Veterans Affairs Canada agreed to review veterans' files. The department has precise records of the demobilization benefits paid to Métis veterans and the file review to date reveals that the veterans received the benefits to which they were entitled.
Veterans Affairs Canada informed the National Métis Veterans Association that the file review clearly indicated that Métis veterans received the benefits to which they were entitled. The department extended an offer to further review these findings with the National Métis Veterans Association. Veterans Affairs Canada also encouraged the association to have individual Métis veterans who believe that they did not receive benefits to which they may have been entitled. or who have questions about the current benefits that Veterans Affairs Canada provides. to contact the department.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has clearly stated that if a Métis veteran did not receive demobilization benefits, the department would of course be prepared to look into that individual case. However the review of the random file indicates that they have received the same benefits and continue to receive the same benefits as all other veterans.
In March 2003, the former minister of veterans affairs met with the then president of the National Métis Veterans Association to listen to concerns and to discuss the findings of the Métis veterans file. At that time, the government committed to develop an outreach program in consultation with the association to facilitate communication and ensure that Métis veterans and their spouses benefit from the full range of Veterans Affairs Canada programs and services for which they are eligible.
In March 2004, the Minister of Veterans Affairs met with the president of the Manitoba Métis Federation and an executive of the Métis National Council to further discuss the concerns of Métis veterans, including the matter of unmarked graves, the post-war treatment of Métis veterans and the development of an outreach strategy.
Subsequently, the department's prairie regional director general met with the Métis National Council representatives to provide information on Veterans Affairs Canada services and benefits and to explain the assessment/application process.
With respect to the third group of aboriginal veterans, the National Aboriginal Veterans Association was given funds to conduct research and compile a list of veterans. Veterans Affairs Canada conducted a random file review of case files to determine what benefits non-status Indian veterans received after the wars. Preliminary results indicated that these veterans also received the same demobilization benefits as other veterans upon their return from the wars.
Veterans Affairs Canada has extended an open offer to the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to review the findings and encourage the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to have any Métis or non-status Indian veterans who have questions about the benefits that Veterans Affairs Canada provides to contact the department.
Where does this leave us? Although significant discrepancies exist between the anecdotal evidence of Métis post-war experiences and those documented in the Veterans Affairs Canada files, Veterans Affairs Canada has offered to work collaboratively with both the National Métis Veterans Association and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to further investigate their concerns.
In order to address current issues, Veterans Affairs Canada is developing an aboriginal outreach strategy aimed at facilitating communication and ensuring that eligible aboriginal veterans and their spouses are benefiting from the full range of Veterans Affairs Canada programs and services. As a part of the strategy, a senior officer within the department would be the first point of contact for aboriginal veterans, spouses and organizations.
On November 10 the federal interlocutor announced a total of $200,000 in funding for aboriginal veterans to promote their contributions to wartime efforts. The National Aboriginal Veterans Association will receive $100,000 and the National Métis Veterans Association will receive $100,000 as well to carry out projects related to their service in the Canadian forces.
The Government of Canada recognizes the service and sacrifice that aboriginal veterans made during the wars. It has already contributed approximately $500,000 toward the construction and unveiling ceremony of a national aboriginal veterans war monument as a tribute to Canadian aboriginal peoples military contributions. Contributions of $1.15 million were also made to establish the aboriginal veterans scholarship trust.
I know these initiatives, substantive as they are, do not satisfy all the concerns of the aboriginal community. I am in no position to comment on the feelings or the heartfelt experience of these gallant war veterans. As in so many things, when it comes to the application of official programs, government is constrained by the rules of the day, the law and the paper evidence found in 60 year old files. In the case of these veterans, there is no evidence in the files that they did not receive the demobilization benefits that were available to all eligible veterans.
However, I would like to stress that all aboriginal veterans who feel they are not receiving benefits are encouraged to and should contact Veterans Affairs Canada.
Jim Prentice: Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed. The government has, in response to the motion brought forward by my hon. friend, a chance to do the right thing. It had an opportunity to do the right thing when this matter was before the committee. The committee adjourned at the insistence of the members of the government without dealing with the issue.
The Liberals have had an opportunity in the House today to respond to the specific motion that has been brought forward, which is a good motion. They have an opportunity to do the right thing by aboriginal Canadians who fought and served for this country in the last war and in the Korean War, aboriginal Canadians who have not received what they were entitled to receive under the law of Canada when they returned to this country.
Why will the government not do the right thing? Why will the government not respond in some meaningful way to these Canadians who have stepped forward and said that they were not treated fairly?
We have received documentation specifically with respect to the Métis National Council, the Manitoba Métis Federation and Mr. Chartrand, in the report, “To Walk With Dignity”. They found that less than 3% of the identified Métis veterans had received one of the three key programs under the Veterans Charter that they were entitled to receive, whether it was education, land or re-establishment grants. Why will the government not deal with this? Why will it not come to the table and respond?
Instead, we have a bureaucratic response, an offer to work in collaboration, an offer of partnership, an explanation that the Liberals are tied down and constrained by old files and the weaknesses of them and that they cannot do anything about this. We have a bureaucratic response something in the nature of the Métis delivery research output program, whatever that is. Why can the government not simply do the right thing and recognize that the hon. member has brought forward a motion where the House has an opportunity to say loudly and clearly that the right thing has not been done in the past?
I keep a copy of the throne speech in my desk. It said that the government and aboriginal people would work together to develop specific quality of life indicators and a report card to hold everybody to account and to drive progress. This is one matter, which posterity will report for the report card of the government that it had an opportunity to do the right thing and it did not do it.
Speaking on behalf of the members of this side of the House and on behalf of my friends elsewhere in the House, we are unanimous in this. The government has repeatedly had an opportunity to deal with this issue, to set Canadian history right, to do the equitable thing, to do the just thing, to respond to the request for recognition and fairness and it has refused to do so.
The last word I will say on this is that is the record before the House. Canadians in days ahead will have a chance to see that.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private member's business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 1:55 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:55 p.m.)